NOTORIOUS PICKPOCKET

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 May 1929, Page 4

NOTORIOUS PICKPOCKET

REMARKABLE EXPLOITS.

George Waldron, alias Barrington, was a notorious pickpocket in England toward the end of the 18th century. k? was I ? uc^l more than a common thief. His educational advantages placed him head and shoulders above the ordinary criminal level, while his superior manners and gift of speech showed that, if it had been his fortune to have commenced life under more favourable conditions, he would have achieved a respectable position in society. But his adverse circumstances and false start in life were entirely due to his own misconduct. Waldron, an account of whose career is given in the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, was born at Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland, in 1775. When he had entered his sixteenth year he attracted the attention of a dignitary of the Church of Ireland, who placed him in a free grammar school in Dublic, the object being to prepare him for the university. In hi evil moment, he quarrelled with a schoolfellow, older and stronger than himself.

Getting the worst of the fight which ensued, Waldron stabbed his comrade with a penknife. The youth was subjected to discipline for this offence: but this, instead of having a deterrent effect, only increased his feeling for revenge. After robbing the schoolmaster, he escaped from the schoolhouse, and wandered aimlessly about the country. While at Drogheda, Waldorn joined a company of strolling players, with whom he remained for a time. The manager of the troupe, who had previously been convicted for fraud and was at the time in fear of capture, was young Waldron’s counsellor and friend. It was at this man’s suggestion that the young fellow assumed the name of Barrington.' Owing to a tolerably pleasing address Barrington soon made his name as an actor; but, fearing that success in the profession would expose him to the attention of his friends, he relinquished what might have been an honourable career. Acting on the advice of his evil counsellor, he adopted another profession—that of a. “gentleman pickpocket.” After relieving many Irish gentlemen of their watches and trinkets, Barrington transferred his operations to London. Ranelagh Gardens were then in the full flood of popularity—the resort of the rank and fashion of the time. Here he managed to pick the pockets of the Duke of Leinster and Sir William Draper of considerable sums. In 1775 we find him at Bath, where, pretending to be a gentleman of fortune, he had no doubt many opportunities of replenishing his exchequer.

DISGUISED AS A CLERGYMAN. On his return to London Barrington went to Court on the Queen’s birthday, disguised as a clergyman, and not only picked several pockets, but found means to purloin a diamond order that adorned the breast of a nobleman. But perhaps, the most daring of his ventures was to attempt to rob the Russian Prince Orloff of a gold snuff-box set with brilliants and valued at £30,000. Following the Prince to Covent Garden Theatre he contrived to secure the treasure but was caught in the act by Orloff himself. For this offence Barrington was prosecuted; but he presented so plausible a defence that liberation followed. Trouble, however, overtook the audacious thief in 1777, in which year, being convicted of theft, he was sent to the hulks for three years. But fortune did not yet desert him, for, owing to his good Conduct in prison, he was liberated at the termination of the first year.

Six months afterwards he was again convicted of theft, and again sentenced to the hulks, this time for a period of five years. Once more good luck attended him. Having nearly wrecked his constitution by an attempt to destroy his life his pitiable condition excited the compassion of a gentleman of rank, a visitor to the hulks, who obtained for him a free pardon, on condition that he quitted the kingdom. The condition was, of course, accepted, and being provided with money by his benefactor, he departed for Dublin.

Within a very short time afterwards Barrington resumed his old practices. Apprehended on a charge of stealing the watch and money of a nobleman at a theatre, he macle so effective a defence in court that he was discharged. He next turned up in Edinburgh, and subsequently in London again. Arrested for violating the condition of release, he was imprisoned for the remainder of his term in Newgate. Soon after the expiration of his captivity he was charged with stealing the watch of Mr Haviland de Maurier, at Drury Lane Theatre, but eluded the vigilance of the constable and so escaped once more. Barrington wandered about the country in various disguises, and eventually turned up in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. The circumstances of'his arrest there are detailed in the following extract from the Newcastle Chronicle of July 5, 1788: — “On Friday evening, June 27, as the Rev. Mr Warilow, of this town, was going into the boxes of the theatre, a man genteely dressed came up to him, and attempted ’to take the watch out of his pocket; but having pulled it out in an oblique direction, it stuck , fast, and Mr Warilow, perceiving his intention, laid hold of his arm; he, however, immediately got it disengaged, and walked up into the green boxes, where he stood looking on the stage till Mr Warilow went to him and accused him of the attempt, which he denied with great firmness and hauteur, and affected to be much insulted by the suspicion; he then walked downstairs, and into the opposite green box, but, seeing Mr Warilow determined not to leave him, he went again downstairs, and walked carelessly out of the theatre, when Mr 1 Warilow, having procured a constable he was apprehended in the passage, i leading to the Flesh Market. ,

IDENTIFIED BY A SAILOR. “Ht? underwent an immediate examination before Mr Aiderman Rudman, and, being unwilling to give a satisfactory account of himself, he was committed to the custody of >a ser-geant-at-mace till next morning, when he was again examined before the Court of Aiderman; he there said his name was Jones, but, that circumstance being doubted, a sailor was brought into Court, who made oath that he knew him to be the rejbwned pickpocket Barrington; a Barrington was thereupon committed' to Newgate, and intelligence sent off to the Public Office in Bow Street, an advertisement having been published from thence in February fast, charging him with having picked the pocket of Mr Haviland de Maurier of a purse containing twenty-three guineas and

a-half, and offering a reward of five guineas on his commitment. “On hearing of his apprehension, I the lady who travels with him, and I calls herself his wife, immediately set ? off:, in their one-horse chaise, toward the south, but returned again the same evening in a different conveyance to the Old Queen’s Head, in Pilgrim Street, where she was discovered by one of the sergeants, who conducted her before a magistrate to undergo an examination. She said her name was Johnson and that her father is a waiter at a tavern in York; but no information could be gained from her that could lead to a discovery of any malpractices of herself or her husband. “Notwithstanding Mr Barrington's dexterity, it appears that he has been rather unsuccessful here, as we do not find that any losses have been sustained from the exercise of his art, though it is imagined that lie was the person who attempted to pick the pockets of the Duke of Northumberland and two other gentlemen in the theatre. Mr Barrington, should this really be him, is a man of genteel appearance, and address, about sft lOin or sft Ilin high, slender make, of a dark complexion, and has sharp, piercing eyes; he was dressed in a drab coat and round hat. Some of the Bow Street people are daily expected to arrive here, to convey hirq, to London.” A fortnight later the ingenious thief was still in custody, as appears from the following paragraph extracted from the Newcastle .Chronicle of July 19: — “The supposed Mr Barrington still remains in custody here, Sir Sampson Wright not having yet thought proper to despatch messengers to convey him to London. He at first indeed, desired

he might be despatched by sea, but that method was, we imagine, deemed too insecure to be adopted. He has been visited in Newgate by a great number of gentlemen, whom he receives in the most polite manner. We could, however, have wished that somewhat more delicacy had been observed in conducting this business; it must be grating to him, and we cannot conceive how anyone can derive pleasure from such a visit.” Another extract from the same source, dated July 26, 1788, gives particulars of the prisoner’s removal: — “It having appeared by the certificate of Mr Henry Collingwood Selby, Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, and by the affidavit of John Townsend, that George Barrington stands indicted at the general sessions of the peace for the County of Middlesex for felony he was removed from hence by habeas corpus on Wednesday last to take his trial thereupon. He was conveyed in the mailcoach in the custody of a sergeant-at-mace and Mr Townsend, one of the Bow Street officers.” John Townsend was of course, the celebrated “Bow Street runner,” of whom many exciting stories are told in the criminal annals of the country. But the special charge on which Mr Townsend’s captive was taken to London seems to have failed on account of the absence at the trial of a material witness.

In the Newcastle Chronicle for September 13, 1788, there is an intimation to the effect that Barrington’s trial at the Old Bailey Sessions would commence on the following Wednesday, charged with stealing the watch of Mr'Le Maurier. Barrington secured the services of an eminent lawyer, who, in the absence of material evidence, was instrumental in securing liis discharge from custody. Barrington’s career as a pickpocket may be said to have come to an end in September, 1798, when, he was sentenced to transportation „ for seven years. During tile voyage in the convict ship to Botany Bay he assisted in quelling a mutiny, for which service he was duly rewarded. The captain of the ship gave so excellent an account of his conduct to the Governor of Port Jackson that that official at once appointed him superintendent of convicts at Parramatta. Subsequently Barrington was appointed high constable of the same place, in which situation he is said to have won the respect of his superiors. Barrington died in 1804, it is supposed from mental imbecility induced by remorse for his wasted life.