The subject of many a crime drama on television, blackmail has intrigued, horrified and fascinated people for centuries. Blackmail, the attempt to gain a payment through threats or pressure, is an example of extortion – the action of extorting anything, especially money, from someone either by force or by using one’s authority or power over another individual. Given that the word ‘extortion’ has been recorded since the 14th century, and ‘blackmail’ since the early 16th century, it’s clearly an age-old practice.

Blackmail has often involved allegations of sexual misdeeds, but blackmailers have not always picked on wealthy individuals as their victims, despite what you might think; sometimes only a relatively small amount of money has been demanded. Similarly, blackmailers have come in many guises – from poverty-stricken governesses to journalists and solicitors, to professional criminal gangs. A look at the records of the Old Bailey (oldbaileyonline.org) reveals a multitude of blackmail cases, revealing both female and male blackmailers and victims.

Back in the first half of the 19th century, when convictions for theft could result in death penalties or transportation, and when people could be convicted on what seem to us, today, rather tenuous evidence, a false accusation of theft could have life-changing – or ending – ramifications. Some cases seem confused, and accusations of extortion and blackmail could result from drunkenness or misapprehensions. Others, though, have been more clear cut.

The majority of extortion cases heard at the Old Bailey in the 19th century, although by no means all, involved male blackmailers, but victims were both men and women. In 1843, George William Hamilton was accused of attempting to blackmail 19-year-old Jessalina Hopper, known as Jessie, an architect’s daughter. One day, George Hamilton knocked on the Hoppers’ door, claiming to have found something Jessie had dropped on her walk, and saying he would be placing a newspaper advert about it unless Jessie got in contact with him. He later handed letters addressed to both Jessie and her sister Emily to one of the Hopper family servants; the one to Emily told her to ensure that Jessie read hers, and that she had to send a response (and money) by 12pm the following Tuesday. The letter to Jessie expressed frustration that she had not already contacted him, and that she obviously ‘cared very little about your reputation, or indeed that of your family, or you would have made some proposal to buy my secret long before this’. Then a letter to Jessie’s father arrived, making clear what the ‘secret’ allegedly was: Hamilton accused Jessie of having frequently visited a local brothel during the previous two months, in the company of an officer.

The police were promptly called, and George Hamilton was arrested (he had given his real name and address on his blackmail letter). At the Old Bailey, he was found guilty and ordered to be transported to Tasmania for 14 years. This was a more serious offence than it might appear today; although it seemed ludicrous that a well-to-do young woman would regularly cavort in a nearby brothel with an army officer, Hamilton knew that many families would not want to risk the effect even a made-up allegation of this kind could have on their daughter’s reputation. An unmarried woman’s innocence and virtue was key in the middle- and upper-class Victorian marriage market, and even a hint that she had engaged in extramarital intrigue could damage her chances of a good marriage. Unluckily for Hamilton, he had picked on the wrong family; they knew that his claims were unfounded and determined to bring him to book.

Yet just as women’s reputations were worth protecting, and thus the target of blackmailer’s lies, so too were men’s – in terms of their sexuality, at least. At a time when homosexual relationships were illegal, to threaten to publish information about a man’s private life could also be a serious matter. Richard Bates sent William Henry Carlin a letter in March 1842 accusing him of committing buggery – with the hope that Carlin would pay him £10 to keep quiet. Carlin, who ran a tobacconist’s shop in the City of London, had never seen or met Bates before, so had no idea who the man who had posted the letter to him was. As soon as he received it, though, he went straight to a magistrate to report the blackmail. Richard Bates was convicted and transported for life, as was George Middleditch, who a year later similarly threatened to accuse the married Major-General Frederick Rennell Thackeray, a cousin of writer William Makepeace Thackeray, of buggery unless he was paid off.

Reading the letters these individuals sent can be fascinating, as they sometimes couch the ‘secret’ matters in such cautious terms that you have to read between the lines to understand what they are alleging. Although sometimes buggery is referred to explicitly, in other letters it is more vague, reflecting Victorian sensibilities. This is the same, though, in letters that aren’t referring to homosexual acts. When former governess Maria Fountaine tried to blackmail William Niven in 1846, she made up a series of allegations against him in a series of letters – from him visiting ‘improper characters’ to accusing her sister of being pregnant out of wedlock and causing her to be ostracised from local society. Niven was a local vicar, and married, and as Maria made clear, ‘it would be detrimental to your character as a clergyman’ if any allegations of sexual misbehaviour or slander on his part was made public.

Blackmailers may have wanted money; sometimes, they also wanted justice, or retribution. In Maria Fountaine’s case, she blamed Niven for her and her sister’s perilous situation – they were out of work and penniless, subsisting on charity and living in shared lodgings. She had fixated on him being the cause of their problems, although her allegations were completely without merit, according to the Old Bailey judge; she saw the role of vicar as being one of charity, expecting him to help her out on a regular basis. When he refused, she resorted to blackmail. The only charity Maria received was a lenient one-year prison sentence.

The letters written by these blackmailers, and their subsequent explanations in court, make clear the importance that was placed on individuals’ reputations, and the blackmailers’ belief that their targets would do anything to protect those reputations. Sexual probity, charity, marital fidelity, heteronormative behaviour: those from the middle and upper classes (those with money) were expected to conform to these ideals, and any hint of misdeeds could damage their reputation irreparably. What blackmailers often failed to predict, though, was how many people would refuse to pay up, sure of their own innocence and willing to defend it in court.

We think of our ancestors as living in a patriarchal society, where women were expected to be the gentle sex, but throughout the centuries there is evidence of women of all classes being keen instigators of court cases, having an awareness of the legal system and who to take complaints to. Although some women, such as Jessie Hopper, had a wealthy, educated father to help her gain justice, her world was more female oriented, consisting of walks and talks with her sister and her female friends – and it was they who would stand up in court to give evidence against her blackmailer.

Later, in 1927, the widowed Jessie Taylor was quick to take her blackmailer to court. She was an intrepid woman who, after her husband’s death, had gone travelling in India. While there, in 1925, she met a 26-year-old journalist named Hubert White Barrett, and a friendship developed between them; she was lonely, and he was kind to her. Their friendship continued after she returned to Scotland. He visited her house there in 1926, and in January 1927 she lent him £300. In August, he stayed at her house again. He then started repeatedly asking her for money, with Jessie giving him a total of £170. It seems that this young man saw Jessie as a provider not only of holidays but also of income, but the money she had lent or given him to date was not enough. On 26 October 1927, he sent her a blackmail letter, threatening to write to her friends and relatives alleging that he and Jessie had had an affair, unless she paid him £600 within the next four days.

Mrs Taylor – described as a ‘model of rectitude’ and ‘proud of her virtue’ – immediately reported the blackmail, and the case came to trial at the Old Bailey in December 1927. In court, Barrett rapidly fell to pieces. He pleaded guilty, insisted that Jessie was a ‘woman of splendid character’, that he regretted what he had done, and that he ‘must have been criminally mad’ to write the letter in the first place, insisting that it had only been ‘bluff’. He was sentenced to four years in Maidstone Prison.

However, these were all individuals who made mistakes and were easily tracked and brought to justice. It could be hard to prosecute blackmail gangs. In 1937, it was reported that blackmail was ‘rampant’, with the prospect of heavy prison sentences for convicted blackmailers not serving as any kind of deterrent. Gangs of blackmailers were said to be operating in London’s West End, but although the police were aware of some victims’ identities, prosecution was not always possible, primarily because victims were reluctant to give statements or provide evidence – unlike those of their Victorian ancestors who gamely stood up in the Old Bailey to denounce their blackmailers. Instead, they paid up, and hoped that the gangs would eventually get bored of them and move on to new victims. Even if they continued to be threatened, they still might refuse to cooperate with the police, out of a fear of their names becoming known if they appeared in court. This was despite the fact that magistrates tended to refer to blackmail victims by a letter, such as Mr X.

Blackmail has always been, and will always be, an act that attracts a certain type of person desirous of cash, and willing to take a risk to get it. For every brave victim willing to take the matter to police and risk exposure for rash acts, or those who know they are innocent of the accusations against them and eager to see their blackmailer get his or her just desserts, there are others who will pay up in order to have secrets from their past stay secrets. The problem for blackmailers, however, is that they never know what type of person their victim is, until it’s too late to retrieve their communication.