Arthur William Hodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Arthur Hodge" redirects here. For the first person in Clark County, Arkansas to be executed by electric chair, see Arthur Hodges.
Arthur William Hodge
Arthur William Hodge

Arthur William Hodge (1763 - 1811) was a plantation farmer, member of the Council and Legislative Assembly and slave owner in the British Virgin Islands who was hanged on 8 May 1811 for the murder of one of his slaves.

Hodge was the first, if not the only slave owner executed for the murder of a slave in the British West Indies.[1] He though was not, as some have claimed, the first white person to have been lawfully executed for the killing of a slave.[2][3]

Hodge was born in the British Virgin Islands, studied at Oriel College, Oxford and served in the British Army. His wife was a sister-in-law of the Marquess of Exeter. He was described as a man of great accomplishments and elegant manners [4] and upon his father's death, he returned to the British Virgin Islands to assume control of the family's plantation.

In 1811, Hodge was tried for the murder of a single male slave, named Prosper. However, during the trial evidence was presented against Hodge in relation to the death several of his slaves, Tom Boiler, Prosper, Cuffy, Margaret and Else.[5] However, it was the death of the last, Prosper, that resulted in Hodge's arrest, trial and ultimately his execution.[6] (Restrictions on similar fact evidence were less consciously observed in colonial courts.) Subsequent estimates have suggested that between 1803 and 1808 Hodge may have murdered as many as sixty of the slaves who worked on his plantation.[7]

Hodge had certainly previously had over 100 healthy negro slaves on his plantation, but according to Daniel Ross, a witness at the trial, upon the death of Hodge's wife,[8] there were no longer enough slaves to dig a grave for her. Ross was to further testify that he could not remember all the names of the negroes who had died in consequence of Hodge's cruelty.

Contents

[edit] The crime

Part of a series on
Slavery
Period and context

History · Antiquity
Religious views: Biblical · Christian · Islamic · Jewish
Slave trades: Atlantic · African · Arab · Asian
Human trafficking · Sexual slavery · Abolitionism · Servitude
Related

Gulag · Serfdom · Unfree labour · Debt bondage · Indentured servant · List of slaves · Legal status
This box: view • talk • edit

Hodge was not well thought of on Tortola on account of his cruelty towards slaves, and the cruel death that Prosper suffered proved to be the proverbial final step too far.

The main evidence given at the trial relating to the death of Prosper was given by Perreen Georges, a free woman of color. She testified that:

"I was present when he [Prosper] was laid down and flogged for a mango which dropt [sic] off a tree, and which Mr Hodge said he should pay six shillings for;[9] he had not the money and came to borrow it of me, I had no more than three shillings; he said to his master that he had no more money; his master said he would flog him if he did not bring it; he was laid down and held by four negroes, on his face and belly, and flogged with a cartwhip; he was under the last better than an hour; he then got up and was carried up to the hill; and his master said he should be flogged again if he did not bring the other three shillings; he was tied to a tree the next day; and the flogging was repeated; he was licked[10] so long that his head fell back, and he could not bawl out any longer; I supposed he was faint; I then went from the window, as I could not bear to see any more of it."

The assaults took place on 2 October 1807 and the following day. On 15 October 1807, Prosper eventually died of his wounds. It then took three and half years for Hodge to be brought to trial, not least because he fled from his estates and had to be arrested by warrant. However, this is only a partial excuse; the indictment was only issued 11 March 1811.

[edit] The trial

The evidence against Hodge was strong and credible. In a small community like Tortola, most were well aware of the goings on at the Hodge plantation. Hodge's defence was not strong. The two strongest prosecution witnesses were Stephen McKeough, a white man who regularly inspected the Hodge estate, and Perreen Georges. Hodge tried to discredit them by alleging that McKeough was a drunk, and Georges was a thief, but both persons would have been well known enough by the jury that the accusations did not stick. Hodge wisely sought to make no unfounded accusations against Daniel Ross, who also testified against him, as he was a Justice of the Peace.

Hodge called his sister, Penelope, and a witness described as an "old black woman" to give testimony to his innocence, but reports suggest that their evidence was one-sided and not regarded as credible.

As is customary in common law legal systems, the defendant was allowed to address the jury before they retired to consider their verdict, and Hodge said this:

"As bad as I have been represented, or as bad as you may think me, I assure you that I feel support in my afflictions from entertaining a proper sense of religion. As all men are subject to wrong, I cannot but say that the principle is likewise inherent in me. I acknowledge myself guilty in regard of many of my slaves, but I call God no witness to my innocence in respect to the murder of Prosper. I am sensible that the country thirsts for my blood, and I am ready to sacrifice it."

However, the jury were also charged with the words of Richard Hetherington, President of the Council of the Territory:

"...the law makes no distinction between master and servant. God created white and he created black creatures; and as God makes no distinction in administering justice, and to Him each is alike, you will not, nor can you alter your verdict, if murder has been proved - whether on white persons or on black persons, the crime is equally the same with God and the law."[11]

On 30 April 1811, the jury retired to consider their verdict at about half past six in the morning. By eight o'clock, they returned with a guilty verdict. However, a majority of the jurors recommended mercy for Hodge. However, such recommendations are not binding, and the presiding judge, Chief Justice Robertson, pronounced that Hodge should be "hanged by the neck on Wednesday the 8th of May following, until he was dead, on a spot near unto the common prison."

[edit] The execution

Governor Hugh Elliot was compelled to commission a militia to prevent reprisals "in a conjuncture so replete with party animosity". He also imposed martial law every night from sunset to sunrise between the handing down of the verdict and Hodge's execution. Finally, he ordered the HMS Cygnet to stand by to support the civilian authorities in case needed. Elliot may have been motivated by a sense of self preservation - he had been the primary mover behind the arrest and trial of Hodge, and clearly many in the community would have been deeply unhappy about the conviction and proposed execution of a white man for the death of a negro slave.

In the week that followed Hodge was allowed to "make his peace with God", and was attended constantly by two ministers of the Methodist church at St Christophers. On the appointed day, he was led out at the jail. He addressed certain individuals whom he singled out in the crowd, and asked them to forgive him for injuries which they had received at his hands. He then addressed the crowd generally and asked them to forgive him. Then Arthur Hodge was hanged.

His body was then taken back to his estate and he was buried, ironically not very far from the grave of the poor and luckless Prosper.

[edit] The law

At the time of Hodge's trial, slavery was still legal, although the trade in African slaves had been abolished by the Slave Trade Act 1807.[12] Africans who had previously been sold into slavery would not formally be freed until much later, in 1834, under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

In practice, slave owners would often proscribe rules of conduct for the handling of slaves to remove fears of arbitrary or excessive punishments, but these were not binding in law.[13] During his unsuccessful bail application, Hodge's own counsel argued "A Negro being property, it was no greater offense for his master to kill him than it would be to kill his dog," but the court did not accept the submission. Indeed, the point was dismissed without any serious discussion.[14][15]

Part of the answer to the question is probably found in the fact that the boundaries of the legality of slavery were in fact little explored under the common law, and it does not seem implausible that slavery could be permitted under the common law on the one hand, but for it to constitute a crime to kill a slave on the other.[16] However, most cases dealing with the status of slaves are well documented and well considered (see generally, slavery at common law). Hodge of course did not have any opportunity to appeal in the eight days between his conviction and execution.

Some have suggested that Hodge was hanged for essentially political reasons. There are several reasons why this might be.

  • A number of slave uprisings had occurred in the British Virgin Islands, including a major one in May of 1790 at the Pickering plantation. The hanging of a notoriously cruel slave owner might have been thought of as a sop to help maintain control of the remaining slave population, who had grown restless as a result of the passing of the Slave Trade Act. If this was the intent, it was not effective, as major rebellions broke out subsequently in 1823 and again in 1830, and a major planned revolt was uncovered before it broke out in 1831.
  • The Governor of the day, Hugh Elliot, was a professed abolitionist.[17] Reports suggest that Elliot personally supervised the proceedings against Hodge, although, as the trial was conducted before an independent judge with a sitting jury, it is unlikely he could have influenced its outcome. He would also wished to have been very careful - as much as he may have disliked slavery personally, he was as aware as anyone else in the British Empire that an economic collapse would be likely in the region without slave labour. But it is noteworthy that nearly three years elapsed without anyone choosing to pursue Hodge at law, until Elliot took up his appointment.
  • The third is that the Territory was considered at the time to be beset by lawlessness. Elliot was reported to have been struck by the "state of irritation ... almost of anarchy" in the Territory. Arresting a significant local figure like Hodge, putting him on trial and executing him would have been a decisive demonstration of authority in an attempt to restore better legal order.[18]

Whilst it is likely that all of these reasons played a part, it seems that petty personal squabbles played a role. A young man named William Cox Robertson (whos father, it is suggested, may have been killed by Hodge in a duel[19]) had returned to Tortola and become engaged in a three way exchange of insults between himself, Hodge and George Martin. During the series of arguments Martin went to Hodge's house on 3 January 1811 "and there most wantonly insulted and assaulted him" according to court records, before doing the same thing to Robertson later that day. Hodge then made "half-uttered threats of calling [him] out", ie. challenging him to a duel. Hodge was known to be an excellent pistol shot and duellist, and Martin decided that "it better not to fight him, without first attempting to deliver himself from such a desperate enemy, by bringing him to public justice." Musgrave was wealthy and enormously well connected on Tortola. This set in course the chain of events that would ultimately lead to Hodge being arrested and tried for Prosper's death - not in the noble name of seeking justice after an atrocity, but rather more because one man was afraid to fight a duel against another.[20] This is not to dispute that high minded men like George Elliot acted entirely upon principle. But had it not been for the petty squabbles of richer men, it is unlikely the events would have been set in motion that led to Hodge's historic trial and execution.

[edit] Ramifications

The ramifications of the execution of Hodge are difficult to gauge. Some historians suggest that the "case stirred up feverish feelings in the islands, and even echoed to the outside world ... it was revolutionary for the times: this was an unprecedented trial, where a white man was proven guilty for the murder of a black man and sentenced to death."[21] Whilst the trial and execution would unquestionably have come as a shock to the slave owning communities in the British West Indies, it does not appear to have had any immediate effect wider than that of Hodge's own plantation. It has been remarked that there were probably many slave owners in the West Indies who were quite as excessive as Hodge,[22] but there does not seem to have been a rush to put them on trial, or on their part to moderate their conduct. There appear to be no other records of any slave owners in the British West Indies being tried for the murder of their slaves.

Within the British Virgin Islands themselves, outside of Hodge's estate, slaves were generally considered to have been treated relatively well, which is perhaps not surprising in light of how valuable they had come since the abolition of the African slave trade. Nonetheless, although the slave's lot continued to be an unhappy one until the general manumission in 1834, at least within the Territory a clear line was drawn in relation to the treatment of slaves.

The trial itself has something of an impact on the Territory's finances. The trial was reported to have cost the Territory nearly six hundred pounds sterling, and to have cost Hodge's estate nearly nine hundred pounds sterling, both extravagant sums for the time.[23]

[edit] Descendants

After delivering the verdict in his trial, all of the jurors faithfully swore that to their knowledge Arthur Hodge held no property in the British Virgin Islands. This lie (not being uncommon) avoided the court needing to make an order condemning his property, and allowed his estate to pass to his 6 year old son, Henry Cecil Hodge (ironically Arthur Hodge had sworn his new will during the disputes with Musgrave and Martin which led ultimately to his execution, although there is no suggestion that he feared for his life at this time). Many years later the Hodge estates would be burned to the ground by a freak fire, and Henry Cecil Hodge son was heard to remark to a friend at the time that he would be forever paying the price of his father's sins.

Arthur Hodge's grandson, Samuel Hodge went on to serve in the British military with great disctinction before being killed in action at the age of 28. He was award the Victoria Cross for actions in the Gambia.

None of Hodge's living descendants live in the British Virgin Islands today, although many of the descendants of his former slaves still do.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ John Andrew, The Hanging of Arthur Hodge[1], Xlibris, 2000, ISBN 0-7388-1930-1. The assertion is probably correct; there appear to be no other records of any British slave owners being executed for holding slaves, and, given the excitement which the Hodge trial excited, it seems improbable that another execution could have occurred without attracting attention. Slavery itself as an institution in the British West Indies only continued for another 23 years after Hodge's death.
  2. ^ Vernon Pickering, A Concise History of the British Virgin Islands, ISBN 10-0934139059, page 48
  3. ^ Records indicate at least two earlier incidents. On November 23, 1739, in Williamsburg, Virginia, two white men, Charles Quin and David White, were hanged for the murder of another white man's black slave; and on April 21, 1775, the Fredericksburg newspaper, the Virginia Gazette reported that William Pitman had been hanged for the murder of his own black slave.Blacks in Colonial America, p101, Oscar Reiss, McFarland & Company, 1997; Virginia Gazette, April 21 1775, University of Mary Washington Department of Historic Preservation archives
  4. ^ John Andrew, The Hanging of Arthur Hodge
  5. ^ Slaves and the Courts, 1740-1860
  6. ^ Reports from the trial suggest that Hodge was a deeply sadistic and disturbed man. Margaret and Else died after boiling water had been poured down their throats. Jupiter was whipped to death, as was Tom Boiler and his brother, another slave named Simon Boiler, for whom Hodge was not tried. Moreover, reports of cruelty to his other slaves came out of the hearings, including the poor treatment of Bella, a small mulatto girl of about 8 years of age, who was Hodge's own offspring with one of his slaves, Peggy. Testimony was also heard as to a number of other mulatto children (also assumed to be Hodge's offspring) were held under water until they lost consciousness, then revived, and the process repeated.
  7. ^ John Andrew, The Hanging of Arthur Hodge, ISBN 0-7388-1930-1. In the trial it was suggested that Hodge's depradations reduced the slave population from 140 to a mere 35.[2]
  8. ^ Both Hodge's wife and daughter died premature deaths; it might be thought with Hodge's propensity towards cruelty and violence that those deaths may not have been natural, but Hodge was never accused (much less charged) with any wrongdoing.
  9. ^ An extortionate sum at the time, and would arguably even be expensive today (30 new pence sterling, or about 50 cents U.S.) for a single mango.
  10. ^ West Indian patois for beaten
  11. ^ Slaves and the Courts, 1740-1860
  12. ^ In practice, abolishing the trade in slaves made the existing negro slaves considerably more valuable, as they could not be replaced.
  13. ^ One set of these rules, from Hannah's estate in Sea Cow Bay, still survives today.
  14. ^ Slaves and the Courts, 1740-1860
  15. ^ Counsel for the prosecution averred that killing a slave had always been contrary to the common law, but cited no authority for this.[3]. Counsel also cited the Amelioration Act 1798, which proscribed fines for cruelty to slaves. But is actually silent as to whether other offences against slaves consistute crimes as if the person was a free man, so such a determination would have to be made as a matter of the common law.
  16. ^ Under the common law, murder requires the defendant to have caused the death of a man under the Queen's peace. In principle there seems to be no reason why a slave is not either a man, or under the Queen's peace. Although slaves were not allowed to marry, they were allowed to hold property of their own (except for other slaves), and were in most other respects treated as persons.
  17. ^ Elliot was actually enormously well connected. His brother, the Earl of Minto, was currently Viceroy of India and his brother-in-law, Lord Auckland, had four years previously moved the bill in the House of Lords which eventually became the Slave Trade Act 1807.
  18. ^ Slaves and the Courts, 1740-1860
  19. ^ The Hanging of Arthur Hodge at page 102
  20. ^ The Hanging of Arthur Hodge at page 105
  21. ^ Vernon Pickering, A concise history of the British Virgin Islands, ISBN 88-85047-12-2
  22. ^ The Newgate Calendar - THE HONOURABLE ARTHUR WILLIAM HODGE
  23. ^ Slaves and the Courts, 1740-1860

[edit] References