Summary proceedings and social relations in the city of London, c.1750-1800
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians of crime and the criminal justice system have largely neglected the summary process. While an important theme of previous work on the history of crime has been concerned with the use of law, most research has focused on the jury courts of assize and quarter sessions and has used records from provincial England. When summary proceedings have been considered attention has mostly focused on the prosecution of specific offences. By focusing on the summary courts of the City of London this work offers both a summary and a metropolitan dimension to this debate. We know relatively little about the nature of summary courts in this period and whether they are best seen as criminal or civil proceedings: this study addresses that issue throughout. Despite the size and importance of London to eighteenth-century English society we have very few studies of its criminal justice system in this period. The research presented here extends our knowledge of petty crime and its prosecution in the late Hanoverian capital. Using the large number of minute books that have survived for the City summary courts as a basis, this dissertation takes both a quantitative and qualitative approach and examines: the position of these courts within the criminal justice system of London; the networks of policing and watching that served the City; the nature and prosecution of property and violent crime; and the regulation of trade, morality and everyday life in the City of London. In doing so it reveals that, in the City of London, participation in the law at the summary level was extensive and touched all classes of the population. It was at the summary level that most people experienced the law in eighteenth century. As such the summary courts operated as a filter to the wider criminal justice system. The law was also used by a much wider range of people - including many women - than some previous histories have allowed. This thesis therefore supports recent work that has suggested that the criminal justice system was not a rigid tool of an elite class. However, it also concludes that in the City of London the summary courts were an integral part of a wider disciplinary network that regulated everyday life in the capital. Indeed, the City emerges as a highly regulated urban centre in this period. Throughout it argues that discretion and negotiation were at the heart of the summary process and that these were by nature civil rather than criminal courts
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".