Background and the Hadleigh Burglary
Sarah Lloyd was a young maid servant in the household of Mrs. Sarah Syer in Benton Street, Hadleigh in Suffolk. Her precise age is unclear, being given as both 19 and 22 years old.
She was described as being small with dark hair and large eyes and a somewhat childlike demeanor. She had a boyfriend, Joseph Clark, who it was thought by some to have put her up to the crime of robbing her mistress’ home.
On the night of the 3rd of October 1799, she let Joseph into the house and they took various items of jewelry from Mrs. Syer’s home, including a watch.
Before they left the house they started a small fire at the bottom of the stairs leading to Mrs. Syer’s first floor bedroom. Fortunately, this was quickly spotted and extinguished with the help of neighbors before it could cause injury or do any serious damage to the property.
Sarah was the chief and only real suspect, particularly as she had gone missing, and she and Joseph were quickly arrested and taken before a magistrate. Both were committed for trial and sent to Bury St. Edmunds Gaol.
There were two Assizes a year in Suffolk at this time (Lent and Summer) and therefore prisoners spent a considerable time on remand—over five months in this case.
The Assize Trial at Bury St. Edmunds
Sarah eventually came to trial at the Suffolk Lent Assizes which opened at Bury St. Edmunds on Thursday the 20th of March 1800 before Sir Nash Grose.
The details of the crime were presented by the prosecution and Sarah’s previous good character by the defence, which was not enough to save her from a guilty verdict from a jury of twelve men on the charge of stealing in a dwelling house goods to a value of more than 40 shillings (£2.00).
They acquitted her on the charge of burglary, and Joseph Clark was acquitted on both counts.
The potential charges of attempted murder and arson were not proceeded with. It was not unusual then, as now, for the prosecution to proceed on the charge that was easiest to prove under capital statutes.
At the end of the Assize all the convicted prisoners were sentenced together, and six men and two women, including Sarah, were condemned to death. The other woman and five of the men were subsequently reprieved.
Capel Llofft’s Campaign for a Reprieve
Sarah was returned to Bury Gaol where she was visited on several occasions by a radical local magistrate called Capel Llofft, who had watched her trial, along with a small number of other local people of high standing in the community.
Llofft got up a petition for a reprieve which was signed by many locally who sympathised with her plight and sent it to the Home Secretary, the Duke of Portland.
Llofft pleaded on her behalf that the extenuating circumstances of her age and immaturity should have been taken into account at her trial. Her age was given as 22 to the court but was not quite 19 according to Llofft. He thus contended that her death sentence was excessive.
Whilst over two centuries later it is easy to agree with him, it should be remembered that the death penalty was mandatory for property theft exceeding 40 shillings, although commutation to transportation was common.
It is probable that the judge also took into account the aggravating circumstances of the arson, which could easily have killed Mrs. Syer had it not been quickly spotted, in his decision not to recommend a reprieve.
Although we may see the theft alone as relatively minor, Sarah’s crimes were viewed very differently at the time, as is shown by this extract from The Times of the 11th of April 1800:
“The circumstances attending the case of Sarah Lloyd are perhaps unequalled for the atrocious intentions of the perpetrator, who was a servant to a very respectable lady, residing at Hadleigh, named Syer. On the 3rd of October last she set her mistress’s house on fire in four different places, and robbed her of some considerable property. Her intention was the destruction of her protectress, for, to prevent the escape of her mistress, the principal combustibles were placed under a staircase which led to her mistress’s bedroom, and, but for the timely assistance of the neighbourhood, she would have perished in the fire.”
Capel Llofft wrote on Sarah’s behalf to various publications rebutting what he saw as obvious hostility towards her in the press, including a letter to The Monthly Magazine in which he set out the details of her crimes and the fact that she was acquitted or not tried on all but the least serious count.
The Reprieve Mix-Up and Execution Date
All this lobbying was to no avail, and Sarah’s execution date was initially set for Wednesday the 9th of April.
However, on the 8th, John Orridge, the keeper of Bury Gaol, received a reprieve for one “S. Hop”. He had no prisoner by this name and thus decided to postpone Sarah’s execution until he received clarification from the Duke of Portland.
This duly arrived by messenger, with the letter stating that “the great object of punishment is example.”
A new execution date was therefore fixed for Wednesday the 23rd of April 1800.
Public Execution at Tay Fen
Capel Llofft went to Bury St. Edmunds Gaol on the morning of the execution, and Sarah told him that she had managed to eventually get off to sleep the night before, and that upon waking, she had dressed.
John Orridge had allowed her to say her goodbyes to the other prisoners before she was prepared for execution.
The morning of the 23rd was a typical April day, both windy and rainy. Llofft had brought an umbrella which Sarah managed to hold over herself as the cart conveyed her to the gallows set up on Tay Fen, about a mile’s journey from the Gaol on the other side of town.
Llofft accompanied her on the journey. The procession was led by the Under Sheriff of Suffolk on horseback and a small number of javelin men to prevent any rescue attempt. It is probable that the hangman sat in the cart with Sarah.
According to Llofft, the hangman was also affected by Sarah’s brave demeanor and appeared nervous as he went about the preparations for her death.
It is reported that Sarah pulled back her hair for him as he put the noose around her neck, although it is unclear whether she did this at the gallows or at the Gaol before he pinioned her.
When the procession reached Tay Fen, Llofft got up into the cart and stood beside her, launching a tirade to the large number of spectators against her punishment and the intransigence of the Duke of Portland that lasted a full five minutes.
Sarah stood calmly beside him until he had finished. Then, as was common under the short drop method of the era, she was allowed to give the signal to the hangman to proceed.
She was “turned off,” and after she had been hanging for a minute, both hands were twice raised slowly and evenly toward her throat. These movements were interpreted by Llofft as signifying “content and resignation.”
No convulsive struggles accompanied her death, and she died quite easily by the standards of the time.
Burial, Tombstone, and Magistrate’s Dismissal
After she was taken down, Llofft paid the hangman for her body so that he could give her a proper Christian burial that evening at St. Mary’s Church.
A thousand people attended her funeral, and Llofft told them that Sarah’s mother had tried to hang herself when she had been told that there would be no reprieve.
Two months later, a tombstone was erected over Sarah’s grave, and this can still be seen today. It is engraved with the following words:
“She suffered a just but ignominious death for admitting her abandoned seducer into the dwelling house of her mistress and becoming the instrument in his hands of the crime of robbery and house burning.”
For his public activism in trying to save Sarah and his impassioned political attack on the Home Secretary from the execution cart, Capel Llofft was summarily dismissed as a magistrate.
Sarah clearly impressed Capel Llofft, John Orridge the jailer, and perhaps even the hangman with her femininity and bravery, making her a sympathetic figure to many observers. However, the potential loss of life if Mrs. Syer had perished in the fire explains why the press and government maintained such an uncompromising stance.
Sarah Lloyd was one of seven women hanged in Britain in 1800 (six in England and one in Ireland) and the only one executed for this specific property offence.
Only three more women were to hang for stealing in a dwelling house, although it remained a capital crime until August 1834, when John Young became the last person executed for it at Winchester.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was Sarah Lloyd?
Sarah Lloyd was a 19-year-old maidservant employed in Hadleigh, Suffolk, who was convicted and executed in April 1800 for stealing valuables from her mistress’s home and setting fire to the staircase.
Why was Sarah Lloyd sentenced to death for theft?
Under 18th-century English criminal law (the “Bloody Code”), stealing property valued at over 40 shillings (£2) from a dwelling house was a capital offence punishable by mandatory death, even though she was acquitted of the more serious charges of burglary and arson.
Who was Capel Llofft and what role did he play?
Capel Llofft was a radical local magistrate who witnessed Sarah’s trial at Bury St. Edmunds. Convinced that her youth, immaturity, and exploitation by her older boyfriend warranted clemency, he organized petitions, appealed to the Home Secretary, and even delivered an impassioned speech condemning the government from the cart at her execution—actions that cost him his position as a magistrate.
What happened to Sarah Lloyd’s body after her execution?
Following her hanging on Tay Fen outside Bury St. Edmunds, Capel Llofft purchased her body from the hangman to prevent anatomical dissection and arranged a proper Christian burial at St. Mary’s Church attended by over 1,000 mourners. A marked headstone detailing her crime still stands today.
Where and when was Sarah Lloyd executed?
She was publicly hanged on Tay Fen near Bury St. Edmunds on Wednesday, 23 April 1800.
Support the Archive
If you have found this article useful and would like to help preserve and maintain this historical archive, please consider supporting the site.