The Harsh Reality Of Victorian Homelessness And The Penny Sit-Ups

The Harsh Reality Of Victorian Homelessness And The Penny Sit-Ups

Today I want to tell you about something that really sums up just how difficult life could be for the poorest people in Victorian Britain. The so called “Penny Sit-Ups” and the shelters that existed for homeless people. Behind the strange name there were men, women, and sometimes even children simply trying to survive another cold night using whatever money they had left.

During the nineteenth century, Britain’s towns and cities grew rapidly because of the Industrial Revolution. Thousands of people moved into cities like London, Manchester, and Liverpool looking for work in factories, docks, and workshops. Some managed to find stable jobs, but many others were forced to live on the edge of destitution. Wages were often low and unreliable, accidents at work were all too common, and an illness could destroy a family’s income. If somebody lost their job or became too sick to work, they could very easily lose their home as well.

By the Victorian period, homelessness had become a major problem in large cities. Workhouses existed for the destitute, but many people were terrified of them. Families were often separated if they entered the workhouse and conditions were harsh and humiliating, with strict rules. Because of this, many homeless people looked for cheaper and less frightening alternatives.

This was where the “Penny Sit-Ups” became known. In some lodging houses and shelters, a person could pay a single penny for the chance to spend the night sitting indoors, often leaning forward over a rope stretched across a room. The rope supported them slightly while they slept sitting upright. In the morning, the rope would be lowered and everyone would have to leave. Can you imagine how uncomfortable and degrading this must have been, especially during winters. But for many people it was better than sleeping outside on dangerous streets.

If somebody had a little more money, perhaps four pennies, they might be able to afford a bed in what became known as a “fourpenny coffin.” These were narrow wooden sleeping boxes stacked beside one another. They offered a tiny amount of privacy and warmth compared to the streets, but conditions were usually overcrowded, dirty, and unhealthy. Disease spread easily in poor lodging houses, and many people struggled with hunger, exhaustion, and possibly even loneliness.

During the later nineteenth century, charities and religious organisations began trying to improve conditions for the homeless. One figure who tried to help was William Booth. He founded The Salvation Army in 1865. They opened shelters, soup kitchens, and workshops. Some reformers genuinely wanted to help the poor to rebuild their lives, but Victorian society often divided the poor into the “deserving” and “undeserving,” and many homeless people were unfairly blamed for their situation. The “deserving poor” were usually seen as the people who had fallen into hardship through no fault of their own. People like widows, orphaned children, the elderly, disabled people, or workers that had been injured in accidents. These people usually received more sympathy and were considered more worthy of charity or help.

The “undeserving poor,” were judged far more harshly. These were people who were unemployed, homeless, struggling with alcohol, or unable to keep steady work. They were accused of being lazy, immoral, and irresponsible. Victorian society could be very judgemental, and many wealthier people believed that poverty was caused by bad choices rather than their difficult living conditions, low wages, illness, or economic problems.

I can’t even begin to imagine the stress of living like this. They must have felt invisible to society. But people still tried to support one another, and to hold onto a little bit of dignity in the incredibly harsh circumstances.

I think stories like this are so important to remember because they remind us that behind all the history books were real people.

Do you think that Victorian society really understood the suffering that people faced by homeless people?

What Ordinary Tudor People Really Thought About Their Monarchs

What Ordinary Tudor People Really Thought About Their Monarchs

Yesterday we talked about the execution of Anne Boleyn and the affects surrounding it, and it made me ask myself another question. What did ordinary Tudor people actually think about the royal family? 

We often look back at the Tudors and see the magnificent palaces and the dramatic and dangerous stories, but the vast majority of people who lived in Tudor England were not courtiers. They were regular people, they were farmers, servants, labourers, merchants, soldiers, apprentices, and craftsmen all trying to survive in a very difficult world. Their relationship with the monarchy was complicated. It was often a combination of loyalty, fear, admiration, resentment, hope, and sometimes desperation.

At the beginning of the Tudor period, many people were probably just relieved that the Wars of the Roses had ended. When Henry VII became king after Bosworth in 1485, stability I would imagine mattered more to many people than the glitz of royalty. Years of war had damaged many noble families and created huge uncertainty to the whole country. Henry VII gained a reputation for being careful and financially strict. Noble families sometimes disliked his heavy taxation and fines, but many ordinary people probably appreciated the fact that England was remaining relatively peaceful. Peace usually meant that there were fewer disruptions to farming and trade. Meaning people would have found survival a little easier.

There was still a strong deference towards the monarchy. Tudor society was hierarchical and most people genuinely believed kings and queens were chosen by God. Questioning royal authority could be dangerous not only in the political sense but also spiritually. The monarch was after all seen as ruling by divine authority on Earth. Many everyday people would never see the monarch in person, but royal events would still have influenced their lives. There would have been proclamations, taxes, sermons, celebrations, and of course, punishments. To many of the lower classes in Tudor England the royal family must have felt very distant and almost mythical.

Under Henry VIII, feelings about the monarchy became much more divided.

 Today he is usually remembered for his six wives and larger than life personality, but ordinary people experienced his reign very differently. Some admired him in his younger years. He was charismatic, athletic, generous in public, and represented strength and magnificence as royalty was expected to do. He held royal tournaments, feasts, and embarked on huge building projects to display his wealth and power. Some people must have looked at these projects with some pride, maybe seeing them as symbols of England’s greatness and not just of Henry’s ego. They would also have projected this image to foreign visitors, ambassadors, and rivals, helping England to appear wealthy, cultured, and powerful on the European stage. Which would have been extremely important to portray, any hint of England’s weakness could encourage foreign powers to take advantage. 

Other people may have wondered to themselves why so much money was spent on what they may have seen as frivolous things when ordinary families were struggling to survive the poor harvests and rising prices. Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn’t it?

Taxes could cause real anger, just like they do today. They were especially resented when they were for wars in France or Scotland. Many ordinary men could be forced into military service and some would have never returned home. But, Tudor monarchs also gave alms and supported charitable works. Medieval and Tudor rulers believed charity helped demonstrate Christian duty and perhaps even aided salvation. Some great building projects, churches, hospitals, and colleges could therefore be viewed as both acts of piety and displays of vanity.

The break with Rome changed ordinary lives enormously. The dissolution of the monasteries during Henry VIII’s reign destroyed institutions that had provided charity, food, medical help, and spiritual solace for centuries. Wealthier nobles sometimes even benefited by gaining former church lands, but poorer communities would have suffered badly. The little support they had was destroyed. This helps to explain why rebellions like the Pilgrimage of Grace gained so much support in the north. Some people were worried their old world was disappearing.

Edward VI was Henry’s only surviving legitimate son and a Protestant. He was surrounded by powerful advisers, and religious change accelerated again. For many ordinary people this period must have felt confusing and maybe even unsettling.

But then came Mary I, who tried to restore Catholicism. Today she is often remembered mainly as “Bl**dy Mary,” but opinions at the time were much more divided. Many Catholics welcomed her restoration of the old religion. Protestants, however, feared persecution. Her marriage to Philip of Spain was also a worry to many English subjects who were anxious about foreign influence on the country.

Finally came Elizabeth I, who became one of the most popular Tudor monarchs with large sections of society. She was a careful monarch who crafted her public image. She understood the importance of spectacle. She took part in royal progresses which allowed ordinary people to actually see her travelling through towns and villages. Her popularity increased especially in 1588 after the defeat of the Spanish Armada. But even during Elizabeth’s reign there were hardships, including poverty, food shortages, and heavy taxation during wartime. Poorer people did not necessarily experience the “Golden Age” in the same way the wealthier people did, and her popularity varied regionally and economically.

What fascinates me most is that Tudor people probably viewed the royal family much more personally than we may think. A monarch’s decisions could influence religion, food prices, employment, war, punishment, and even survival. Royal marriages and deaths could genuinely create fear or celebration because they affected the stability of the country. Some people loved their monarchs, some feared them, and some just endured whatever changes arrived from above because they had little choice.

I also think it is interesting how differently we judge Tudor monarchs today compared to people living at the time. Modern people often admire figures for their personality or their accomplishments, but ordinary Tudor people were more likely to care about whether they brought peace, stable prices, fair taxes, or religious security. Basically they wanted a boring monarch!

Do you think ordinary Tudor people loved their monarchs, or did they fear them?

Image info:

An Allegory of the Tudor Succession: The Family of Henry VIII

Date: 1590

Collection: Yale Center for British Art

The Ordinary Wartime Housewife Who Created One Of Britain’s Greatest Diaries

The Ordinary Wartime Housewife Who Created One Of Britain’s Greatest Diaries

Yesterday we found out about Mass Observation and today we are going to learn a little about Nella Last, one of the most famous diarists connected to the project. What I love about her story is that she was not a politician, celebrity, or historian. She was an ordinary housewife from Barrow-in-Furness whose personal feelings and thoughts ended up becoming one of the most important records of everyday life during the Second World War.

Nella Last was born Nellie Lord on the 4th of October 1889 in Barrow-in-Furness in Lancashire. Her father worked as a railway clerk, and in 1911 she married Will Last who was a joiner and shopfitter. They had two sons, Arthur and Clifford, and for many years Nella lived the normal routine of domestic life that was expected of most women of her generation. She seemed to find life difficult and struggled with anxiety.

In 1939, at the age of forty-nine, she began writing for Mass Observation. She described herself as “Housewife 49.” What started as a diary gradually became a huge record of daily life, it eventually reached around twelve million words.

In her diaries, she said that she felt restricted by domestic life and was sometimes lonely in her marriage. Will was generally portrayed as a quiet, traditional, and often emotionally distant man.

She appears to have had a close relationship with her two sons, Arthur and Clifford. Her diaries show that she worried about them constantly during the War. She seemed to be especially close to Clifford and she encouraged his artistic talents. She seems to have been closer to her children than to her husband. 

During the war she volunteered with the Women’s Voluntary Service and the British Red Cross, helping her community while also recording her thoughts, worries, frustrations, and hopes. This seemed to give her a sense of purpose.

Her diary was an incredible peek inside the life of wartime Britain. She wrote about everything from rationing and bombing raids to family tensions and the changing roles for women during the war. The bombing of Barrow in 1941 affected her badly, her own home was damaged.

 Writing seemed to give Nella a confidence and independence she previously didn’t have. It allowed her to express feelings that she may previously have kept hidden.

After the Second World War Clifford emigrated to Australia, where he became a respected sculptor with works displayed in galleries including the Art Gallery of Ballarat. Nella was exceptionally proud of all his achievements.

She continued to write into the Mass Observation long after the war, giving us another great insight into post-war Britain.

After her death in 1968, her diaries were published and later inspired the television drama Housewife, 49 starring Victoria Wood. Nella Last’s words remain one of the most powerful and incredible personal accounts of ordinary British life during wartime.

Image info:

Nella and Clifford

The Heartbreaking Life Of Joseph Merrick The So Called Elephant Man

The Heartbreaking Life Of Joseph Merrick The So Called Elephant Man

Today I want to talk about a rather sad story, the life of the so called “Elephant Man,” Joseph Merrick. The more I learned about him, the more I realised how often his humanity was completely overlooked during his lifetime. Behind the public curiosity and cruel treatment was a gentle and intelligent man who spent much of his life just wanting kindness, dignity, and acceptance.

 

Joseph Merrick was born on the 5^th of August 1862 in Leicester, England. When he was born, he appeared to be a healthy baby boy. As he grew up, unusual growths and deformities began to affect his body. His skin started to thicken, parts of his face and his limbs became enlarged, and his ability to walk became increasingly difficult. Modern doctors still debate exactly what condition he actually had. Many now believe it may have been Proteus syndrome rather than the illness that was suggested during his lifetime.

 

Joseph’s childhood was painful both emotionally as well as physically. Victorian society could be extremely cruel towards people who looked different. His mother died when he was still quite young, and his life became even harder for him. He struggled to find work because many employers were frightened of his appearance. He had jobs in factories and as a street hawker, but people just stared at him and mocked him. They often tried to  avoid him completely. He must have been so lonely and humiliated.

 

Eventually, with very few options left, Joseph joined the world of the travelling sideshows. He was displayed to paying crowds under the name “The Elephant Man.” Some visitors treated him as a spectacle, but this work  gave him a way to survive in a society that offered him very little compassion. Those who actually knew him  described him as polite, thoughtful, and sensitive.

 

In 1884, Joseph met a London surgeon named Frederick Treves at the London Hospital. Treves became fascinated by his condition. He gradually started to learn that Joseph was more than just a curiosity. Joseph was offered a permanent room at the hospital, where he was able to finally get some comfort, friendship, and protection.

 

Sadly, Joseph’s health continued to decline. On the 11^th of April 1890, at only twenty-seven years old, he died in his room at the hospital. His story is heart breaking. The more I read about Joseph Merrick, the more I find myself wondering how many people judged him without ever truly seeing the person underneath.

 

Do you think Victorian society would have treated Joseph Merrick differently if people had understood his condition better?

 

How Tudor England Reacted To The Fall Of Anne Boleyn

How Tudor England Reacted To The Fall Of Anne Boleyn

I want to talk about the execution of Anne Boleyn, but I want to come at it from a different perspective. I want to find out a little about the reactions to her execution. I realised they are far more complicated than I had first imagined. England in 1536 was already a place of fear, gossip and religious tension. Anne had changed the country forever through her relationship with Henry VIII, so when she fell, people across England reacted in very different ways depending on their loyalties, beliefs, and of course their fears.

By the spring of 1536, Anne was already unpopular with many people. Some people still blamed her for the king’s break with the Catholic Church and for the suffering inflicted on Catherine of Aragon and Princess Mary. Rumours always spread fast in the Tudor court and Anne became a victim of gossip. Whether the rumours were true or fabricated really didn’t matter. Her enemies moved fast to ensure they capitalised on the situation. Anne was arrested in May and accused of adultery, treason, and even incest with her brother George. Many ordinary people gathered in taverns, marketplaces, and streets to discuss the shocking news. Some believed the accusations immediately and without question because of the propaganda against Anne that had been circulated for years. Others doubted the charges but were too frightened to say so openly. In Tudor England, disagreeing with the king could be extremely dangerous.

At court, reactions were quite cautious and often cold. Many courtiers very quickly abandoned Anne because they understood how risky it was to remain connected to someone that was accused of treason, and self-preservation was key. Some people who had praised her suddenly pretended that they had never supported her at all. The atmosphere at court must have been incredibly tense. If a queen could be destroyed so easily then nobody was safe. Anne’s supporters were watched and many kept silent to protect themselves. Thomas Cromwell, once one of Anne’s allies, had turned against her and helped to organise the case against her. After her death, many of her supporters lost influence or withdrew from court entirely.

Anne’s brother, George Boleyn, was executed just two days before Anne. Her father, Thomas Boleyn, appears to have remained  obedient to Henry VIII, at least outwardly, probably because he had little choice if he wanted to survive. Thomas Howard, Anne Boleyn’s uncle, played a role in her downfall. He presided over parts of the trials against Anne and her brother, George Boleyn. Most likely in an attempt to keep his influence at court and save his own skin.

 

The family largely disappeared from political power afterwards. It must have been devastating and humiliating for them.

On the 19th of May 1536, crowds gathered around the Tower of London hoping to hear news of the execution. Some people prayed, some watched out of curiosity, and others probably came because executions were major public events in Tudor England. Witnesses went on to describe Anne as calm and dignified. Her composure appears to have moved even some of those who disliked her. A few people reportedly cried as she prepared herself for death. Others believed her execution was justice and they were relieved that Henry could now remarry.

Princess Mary probably felt a complicated mixture of relief and bitterness. Anne had supported Mary being declared illegitimate and in her being separated from her mother. After Anne’s death, Mary’s treatment gradually improved, although Henry still demanded complete obedience from her. Elizabeth, however, was only two years old and could not understand what had happened. After Anne’s execution, she too was declared illegitimate and removed from the line of succession. The household around Elizabeth changed, and many of the servants that were connected to Anne were dismissed. The consequences of her mother’s fall shaped the rest of her life.

Across the country, reactions remained divided. Some people celebrated openly because they hoped England would return to stability. Church bells reportedly rang in some places after Anne’s death. Others were shocked by how quickly Henry had turned against a woman he had once fought so hard to marry.

Do you think that most people in Tudor England believed Anne Boleyn was guilty?

 

The Ordinary Voices That Helped Record Wartime Britain’s Hidden Feelings

The Ordinary Voices That Helped Record Wartime Britain’s Hidden Feelings

Over the past week or so, I have been finding out a little about life on the home front during the Second World War. Today I want to discover a bit about Mass Observation, and I honestly had not realised just how unusual and important it was. It began before the war and it tried to record the everyday thoughts, feelings, habits, and experiences of people across Britain. History often focuses on politicians, royalty, or military leaders and Mass Observation wanted to understand what normal people actually thought about the world. I really love the idea of it being a kind of diary of the whole country.

Mass Observation officially began in 1937. It was created by Tom Harrisson, Charles Madge, and Humphrey Jennings. Harrisson was an anthropologist and an explorer, Madge was a poet and journalist, and Jennings was a filmmaker and artist. They believed that the lives of ordinary people mattered and they deserved to be recorded. Britain during the 1930s was influenced by political tension, economic worries, unemployment, and growing fears about another war developing in Europe. Many people were feeling ignored by those in power, and Mass Observation hoped to create what they called “an anthropology of ourselves.”

Volunteers from across Britain agreed to take part. Thousands of people eventually became involved. Some kept diaries, some answered detailed questionnaires, and others wrote honestly about their daily lives, relationships, fears, opinions, shopping habits, or reactions to major events. Observers also went out into towns, pubs, factories, and streets to secretly record conversations and behaviour. It may sound intrusive, but the organisers believed they were capturing real life exactly as it happened.

One of the most important moments for the Mass Observation was during the Second World War. Britain was facing bombing raids, rationing, evacuation and grief. The government wanted to keep an eye on the public’s morale, they were worried about panic or falling support for the war effort. Reports that were produced by Mass Observation were sometimes shared with officials and ministries who wanted to know how people were coping. In many ways it gave ordinary people a voice, albeit anonymously.

One of the best-known Mass Observation writers was Nella Last. She was a housewife from Barrow-in-Furness who began writing for the project in 1939. At first, she struggled with loneliness, poor health, and an unhappy marriage, but her diary gradually became a way for her to express the feelings she had been hiding for years. During the war she volunteered with groups including the Women’s Voluntary Service and gained a sense of confidence and independence. Her diaries were honest and emotional. They described everything she experienced from rationing and air raids to the tensions in her family. She even wrote about the happy times in her life. Today her writings are considered some of the most valuable personal accounts of everyday life in wartime Britain.

For all the volunteers writing the diaries, the experience must have felt very personal. Some of the participants wrote about their loneliness during air raids, just like Nella did. They also expressed that they missed their loved ones who were serving abroad. They explained their exhaustion from factory work and sometimes of their concerns and fears about not surviving the war or of an invasion. Others described moments of joy and happiness, of humour, friendship, and of community spirit. Reading their words today makes the war feel more human and real because we hear about not just the headlines but also the emotions of the people behind them. Maybe some of the participants felt some comfort knowing that somebody was listening to them.

By the late 1940s and early 1950s, the original project had begun to decline. Britain was changing after the war, and funding became more difficult. The original Mass Observation effectively ended in the early 1950s, although some work continued afterwards in a smaller way. Then in 1981, a new version called the Mass Observation Project began at the University of Sussex, encouraging people again to write about their ordinary life.

Today, the original diaries, surveys, and reports are preserved mainly at the University of Sussex. Historians, writers, and filmmakers still use them to get a better understanding of how ordinary people lived and felt during some of the most difficult times of the twentieth century. Without Mass Observation, many personal voices and emotions from that era may have been completely lost to history.

Tomorrow I want to learn more about Nella Last as person.

If you had lived during the 1930s or Second World War, do you think you would have written honestly in one of those diaries?

Image info: 

Nella and her son, Cliff.

The Bow Street Runners And The Dangerous Streets Of Georgian London

The Bow Street Runners And The Dangerous Streets Of Georgian London

Yesterday we talked about the Blind Beak, and today I to talk about the Bow Street Runners. After discovering a little more about them, I realise just how important they were in the history of policing in Britain. Long before modern police forces even existed, London was struggling with rising crime, overcrowded streets, poverty, and violence. The Bow Street Runners became one of the first organised attempts to bring some kind of order to the chaos.

The story really began in the mid eighteenth century. London was growing rapidly and crime was really worrying many people. Streets were often dark and dangerous at night. Highway robberies, theft, gambling dens, and violent crime were all too common. Ordinary people could feel unsafe and a lot of crimes went unsolved because there was no professional police force. There were local watchmen and unpaid constables who tried to keep some order, but they were very poorly trained and often unreliable.

In 1749, a magistrate named Henry Fielding decided that something needed to change. Many people know him today as a novelist, but he was also very troubled by the suffering and disorder he saw all around him in London. Working from Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in Covent Garden, he began organising a small group of trusted men to help investigate crimes and to track down offenders. These men became known as the Bow Street Runners.

The Runners were not police officers in the modern sense. They were more like early detectives. At first there were only a handful of them, but they quickly gained a reputation for being more organised and effective than many other law officers of the time. They investigated crimes, gathered the evidence, arrested the suspects, and even travelled across the country to follow leads. Victims of crime may have finally started to feel that someone was actually trying to help them.

After Henry Fielding’s health started to decline, his half brother John Fielding, who we talked about yesterday, took over much of the work. John was blind, which made his achievements even more remarkable in the eyes of many people at the time. He reportedly recognised thousands of criminals by the sound of their voices alone. Under his leadership, the Bow Street Runners became even more organised. Notices describing stolen goods and wanted criminals were circulated and it created one of the earliest systems for sharing criminal information.

The work could be extremely dangerous, as you can imagine. London was still a violent place and the Runners often needed to deal with armed criminals. They were sometimes criticised and even accused of corruption, especially because they received rewards for catching offenders. There was most likely at least some corruption, but they also helped lay the foundations for modern policing and detective work.

By the early nineteenth century, Britain was changing. Crime prevention was becoming much more important than reacting to the situation after the crimes happened. In 1829, Robert Peel created the Metropolitan Police Force, and the Bow Street Runners gradually disappeared, they were eventually disbanded in 1839. But their influence was still clear. They had shown that organised investigation and trained officers could make cities feel safer.Yesterday we talked about the Blind Beak, and today I to talk about the Bow Street Runners. After discovering a little more about them, I realise just how important they were in the history of policing in Britain. Long before modern police forces even existed, London was struggling rising crime, overcrowded streets, poverty, and violence. The Bow Street Runners became one of the first organised attempts to bring some kind of order to the chaos.

The story really began in the mid eighteenth century. London was growing rapidly and crime was really worrying many people. Streets were often dark and dangerous at night. Highway robberies, theft, gambling dens, and violent crime were all too common. Ordinary people could feel unsafe and a lot of crimes went unsolved because there was no professional police force. There were local watchmen and unpaid constables who tried to keep some order, but they were very poorly trained and often unreliable.

In 1749, a magistrate named Henry Fielding decided that something needed to change. Many people know him today as a novelist, but he was also very troubled by the suffering and disorder he saw all around him in London. Working from Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in Covent Garden, he began organising a small group of trusted men to help investigate crimes and to track down offenders. These men became known as the Bow Street Runners.

The Runners were not police officers in the modern sense. They were more like early detectives. At first there were only a handful of them, but they quickly gained a reputation for being more organised and effective than many other law officers of the time. They investigated crimes, gathered the evidence, arrested the suspects, and even travelled across the country to follow leads. Victims of crime may have finally started to feel that someone was actually trying to help them.

After Henry Fielding’s health started to decline, his half brother John Fielding, who we talked about yesterday, took over much of the work. John was blind, which made his achievements even more remarkable in the eyes of many people at the time. He reportedly recognised thousands of criminals by the sound of their voices alone. Under his leadership, the Bow Street Runners became even more organised. Notices describing stolen goods and wanted criminals were circulated and it created one of the earliest systems for sharing criminal information.

The work could be extremely dangerous, as you can imagine. London was still a violent place and the Runners often needed to deal with armed criminals. They were sometimes criticised and even accused of corruption, especially because they received rewards for catching offenders. There was most likely at least some corruption, but they also helped lay the foundations for modern policing and detective work.

By the early nineteenth century, Britain was changing. Crime prevention was becoming much more important than reacting to the situation after the crimes happened. In 1829, Robert Peel created the Metropolitan Police Force, and the Bow Street Runners gradually disappeared, they were eventually disbanded in 1839. But their influence was still clear. They had shown that organised investigation and trained officers could make cities feel safer.

 Do you think the people of eighteenth-century London would have trusted the Bow Street Runners, or feared them just as much as the criminals they chased?

 Do you think the people of eighteenth-century London would have trusted the Bow Street Runners, or feared them just as much as the criminals they chased?