Black Markets and Desertion : Soldiers ’ Criminality in Helsinki 1748 – 1757

This article examines the issue of soldiers’ criminality in mid-eighteenth-century Helsinki, the most important garrison town and naval base in the eastern part of Sweden (i.e. modern Finland) after the Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743). It seeks to answer the following questions: what kinds of crimes were soldiers typically convicted of, and what does the structure of criminality tell us about soldiers’ behaviour during peacetime? Is it justifiable to argue that the presence of the armed forces was a source of trouble for the townsfolk? The period under investigation is interesting, because at that time thousands of soldiers had been transported to Helsinki to construct a new sea fortress, Sveaborg, in the town as well as on the nearby islands. Suddenly a small coastal town with ca. 1,500 inhabitants was packed with soldiers from nearly all corners of Sweden. Soldiers’ criminality is not a new theme; several historians have touched upon the issue, though only a handful of studies have specifically concentrated on the military population.1 One of the major arguments in Scandinavian historiography has been that soldiers were more inclined towards violence – especially serious violence, such as homicide – than all other social groups during the early modern period. This was certainly the case in rural areas during the seventeenth century as well as in late seventeenth-century Stockholm. Soldiers’ propensity for violence has been explained by referencing their experiences of war and the fact that garrison soldiers were often armed with swords. It has also been argued that the cultural code of soldiery instructed soldiers to respond in a spontaneously aggressive manner if their honour was challenged, else they lose face among their peers.2 As for eighteenth century, it has been proven that soldiers were over-represented in street fights, tavern brawls and even in large-scale riots in Stockholm (e.g. Södermalmsupploppet in 1719). Fights between soldiers and fire watches (brandvakter) Black Markets and Desertion: Soldiers’ Criminality in Helsinki 1748–1757 Petri Talvitie


Introduction
This article examines the issue of soldiers' criminality in mid-eighteenth-century Helsinki, the most important garrison town and naval base in the eastern part of Sweden (i.e.modern Finland) after the Russo-Swedish War (1741-1743).
It seeks to answer the following questions: what kinds of crimes were soldiers typically convicted of, and what does the structure of criminality tell us about soldiers' behaviour during peacetime?Is it justifiable to argue that the presence of the armed forces was a source of trouble for the townsfolk?The period under investigation is interesting, because at that time thousands of soldiers had been transported to Helsinki to construct a new sea fortress, Sveaborg, in the town as well as on the nearby islands.Suddenly a small coastal town with ca.1,500 inhabitants was packed with soldiers from nearly all corners of Sweden.
Soldiers' criminality is not a new theme; several historians have touched upon the issue, though only a handful of studies have specifically concentrated on the military population. 1 One of the major arguments in Scandinavian historiography has been that soldiers were more inclined towards violence -especially serious violence, such as homicide -than all other social groups during the early modern period.This was certainly the case in rural areas during the seventeenth century as well as in late seventeenth-century Stockholm.Soldiers' propensity for violence has been explained by referencing their experiences of war and the fact that garrison soldiers were often armed with swords.It has also been argued that the cultural code of soldiery instructed soldiers to respond in a spontaneously aggressive manner if their honour was challenged, else they lose face among their peers. 2s for eighteenth century, it has been proven that soldiers were over-represented in street fights, tavern brawls and even in large-scale riots in Stockholm (e.g.Södermalmsupploppet in 1719).Fights between soldiers and fire watches (brandvakter) were especially common.Similar phenomena can also be found in late eighteenthcentury Copenhagen: fights between soldiers and civilians were not uncommon.Most notable were two riots between officers and students in 1787 (Fejden i Filosofgangen) and 1793 (Posthusfejden), riots that lasted several days and involved dozens of participants. 3owever, violence and rowdiness were only one, and probably a minor aspect of the soldiers' criminal behaviour, at least in a small garrison town like Helsinki.The aim of this article is to highlight another matter, namely soldiers' activity in the urban underground economy, by which I mean phenomena such as stealing and the selling of stolen goods, as well as smuggling and illegal transactions outside the marketplace.It should be noted at this point that these offences were part of a much larger issue including irregular jobs and contracts, together with prostitution and other similar phenomena not specifically classified as crimes. 4he relationship between the armed forces and the underground economy has not really been studied before, as far as the early modern period is concerned. 5There are a few exceptions, however.Jennine Hurl-Eamon's article about the makeshift economy of military families in eighteenth-century London should be mentioned in this connection.One of the central arguments of her article is that stealing, taking odd jobs and the pawning of goods, to take a few examples, were part of military husbands' and wives' survival strategies.Infantrymen and sailors were badly paid, and as a consequence they had to find additional sources of income.The role of the soldiers' wives was also important.'Even at the best of times', she writes, 'men in the ranks of the army and navy would not have been able to maintain their families without their mate's help'.Sometimes the economic rigours of military family life drove wives to theft, extortion and the sex trade.In addition, they often acted as agents by selling stolen goods for others. 6Similar phenomena were also to be found in Helsinki.
There are a number of other studies that point in the same direction.Karsten Skjold Peterson has shown that the most common crimes in the Danish Jyske/ Fynske Infantry Regiment in Copenhagen between 1774 and 1803 were desertion and property crimes (desertion 46 percent, property crimes 38 percent).Contrastingly, the frequency of violent crimes was low.Fights and riots between the civilian and military populations were striking, like those between officers and students, and they certainly stuck in the minds of local inhabitants.That being said, thefts and fraud were much more characteristic offences in everyday life. 7he data used in this article rests upon the records of the regimental courts martial, inferior city courts and the Castle Court (slottsrätten).My principal aim has been to gather all court cases relating in some way to Helsinki. 8In doing so, I have sought to construct a general view of soldiers' criminality in Helsinki between 1748, when the construction of the fortress at Sveaborg was initiated, and 1757, when the majority of the soldiers were sent to Pomerania. 9This endeavour is comparable to the investigation of Arne Jarrick and Johan Söderberg on criminality in Stockholm in 1681 and in 1780.Their study is also based on the comparison of different judicial systems -city, military and ecclesiastical courts -though they discuss overall criminality, whereas this article concentrates on offences committed by soldiers. 10In practice such realisation has been only partial, as there are notable gaps in the source material.The most important deficiencies concern the Swedish tenure regiments sent to Sveaborg during the 1750s. 11I have not found a single court record related to Helsinki or Sveaborg.The gap is consistent, and it is possible that the records of the Swedish regiments disappeared during the command in Finland.The court records of the Jägerhorn Regiment, one of the three garrison regiments in Helsinki from the 1750s onwards, are also missing.I have managed to isolate some cases from the General Court Martial in Stockholm, but these findings concern only the years 1756-1757.Some other smaller deficiencies are specified in the charts.

Helsinki as a Garrison Town
Helsinki has been an important military town since its establishment in the mid-sixteenth century.However, until the mid-eighteenth century the presence of armed forces was restricted to times of war, when Helsinki functioned as a transit town for troops marching to the battlefield.During peacetime Helsinki was an ordinary trading town with only a handful of soldiers keeping watch at the corps-de-garde.The situation changed dramatically in the late 1740s, after the Russo-Swedish War (1741-1743), which ended in a humiliating defeat for the Swedish troops.During that time the Swedish government began systematically to improve the defensive capabilities of the Finnish territories and decided to construct a central fortress together with a naval base in Helsinki and a border fortress in Loviisa (the fortress of Svartholm).On the one hand, the reasons behind this decision were related to the fear of Russian invasion.Russians troops had succeeded in occupying Finland twice during the early eighteenth century, and the south-eastern part of the country was ceded to Russia in the peace treaties of 1721 and 1743.Finland would have been in a vulnerable situation if nothing had been done.On the other hand, the construction of Sveaborg was part of the super-power politics of the mid-eighteenth century.To a large extent the entire project was financed with French money, because the French government wanted to create a buffer against Russian expansion in Northern Europe. 12nitiated in 1748, the construction of the sea fortress Sveaborg meant that Helsinki became a garrison town with a significant military population.It has been estimated that in 1750 there were approximately 1,500 civilians in the city, compared with 2,400 soldiers.By 1755 the number of soldiers had increased to 6,000, whereas the number of civilians was only around 2,000, i.e. three times fewer.Accommodating these soldiers became a major obstacle for the city.During the first construction period of the fortress (1748-1757), officers and artillerymen lived in the houses of local burghers.The first barracks were built in 1748, but there were not enough of them and some soldiers were forced to live in saunas and assorted outbuildings. 13he military population residing in Helsinki consisted of two socio-economically distinct groups of soldiers: enlisted soldiers and tenure soldiers.Enlisted soldiers belonged to the lowest stratum of society.They were often former criminals or vagabonds without permanent occupation.Most of these soldiers were recruited from the Swedish provinces, but there were, for instance, a number of Prussian prisoners and deserters.The number of Finnish-born recruits was rather low, however, because the regiments were not allowed to enlist soldiers from the Finnish provinces during the mid-eighteenth century.There was one exception for this: enlisted regiments were allowed to recruit beggars and other vagrants outside the labour markets by legal force, and according to the court records the officers actively availed themselves of this prerogative.Sometimes recruiting officers exceeded their authorities and tried to enlist citizens who resided in the town legally. 14he enlisted soldiers served in three units: one artillery battalion and two infantry regiments, namely the Hamilton Regiment, later known as the Änkedrottningens livregemente (the Queen Dowager's Life Regiment) and the Cronhielm Regiment (later known as the Jägerhorn Regiment).The artillery battalion had already arrived in Helsinki in the mid-1740s, while the infantry regiments were transported to Helsinki from Sweden between 1751 and 1753.By that time, the strength of the enlisted regiments was somewhere around 2,300 men. 15s for tenure soldiers, they were part of a military allotment system, the purpose of which was to replace conscription by obligating farmers to maintain the soldiers.Tenure soldiers were housed in the countryside, and most of them came from a peasant background themselves.They did not receive cash salaries but were given a croft with a piece of land and, as a consequence, during peacetime tenure soldiers essentially became small-scale farmers.In addition, they were quite often married and their social standing was higher than that of enlisted soldiers. 16here were in total ten tenure regiments in Finland in the 1750s, and all of them were detailed to Helsinki at the beginning of the construction of Sveaborg.Additionally several battalions from the Swedish tenure regiments were transported to Finland between 1751 and 1754.Altogether there were soldiers from around 20 tenure regiments.We should note, though, that the regiments or battalions stayed in the town only for short periods of time and that, during the winter, when construction work was at a standstill, the units were often sent away from the town.Furthermore, many soldiers were detailed to the surrounding countryside to burn charcoal and log wood for the fortress.As a consequence, it is nearly impossible to estimate the number of tenure soldiers in Helsinki during the 1750s. 17aving a garrison in the town was advantageous for the townsfolk in many ways.The construction of fortresses and the maintenance of the garrison offered important business opportunities for local traders, restaurateurs, publicans, craftsmen, manufacturers and suppliers, including peasants living in the surrounding countryside.Officers accustomed to a certain standard of living supported local tailors, hatters, wigmakers and goldsmiths.Sveaborg was also an important employer for many civilians such as artisans and functionaries.The same also applied the other way round: soldiers on leave constituted an important workforce for the local brickworks, bakeries and other manufacturing facilities.Soldiers also undertook labouring jobs, which threatened the privileged position of the local craftsmen and burghers.Citizens, however, had to accept this competition to a certain extent, as legislation was not entirely on their side.For instance, soldiers were allowed to do labouring and piecework to supplement their meagre income. 18

Court System in Helsinki
Traditionally Swedish towns had the privilege to exercise judicial power within the city, and naturally such was the case in Helsinki too.The lowest court was called the kämnärsrätten, a Treasure's Court, which dealt with all minor cases such as debts, fights and most sexual crimes.In addition, nearly all serious offences were examined in this court of first instance.The rådhusrätten (Magistrates' Court) passed sentences on serious crimes such as homicides, infanticides and bestiality, and functioned as a court of appeal over the decisions of the kämnärsrätten. 19However, when regiments marched to Helsinki they brought with them their own court system, and as a consequence there existed two parallel court systems in the same city.The military court system consisted of regimental courts martial (regementskrigsrätt) and general courts martial (generalkrigsrätt).Regimental courts martial (RCM) represented the lowest level of court martial, and their number varied according to the number of regiments in the town.The general court martial (GCM) supervised and heard appeals from the regimental courts and heard cases in which nobles were involved.In 1750, the GCM functioned in several localities.The permanent GCM, founded in 1727, was located in Stockholm.Enlisted regiments and artillery, however, were entitled to found their own GCM from 1739 onwards. 20One of these special GCM convened in Helsinki, namely 'the Royal General Court Martial in the Grand Duchy of Finland' (Kongl.General Krigs Rätten i Storförstendömet Finland).Earlier research has not noted the existence of this special GCM, and as a consequence its history has not been studied before.It was possibly founded when the enlisted regiments arrived in Helsinki, but this is merely a hypothesis.It is interesting to note that this instance also heard cases involving soldiers from Finnish and Swedish tenure regiments, if the offence had taken place in Finland. 21In 1756 this system was modified so that all separate GCM were abolished, and cases had to be sent to Stockholm. 22he court system in Helsinki became even more complicated in 1755 when a so-called slottsrätt (Castle Court) was founded.This court was specifically designed to arbitrate street fights and petty thefts involving soldiers and fire watches (the so-called brandvakt).Fire watches were almost police authorities, often former soldiers themselves, who were responsible for keeping watch during the night in case of fire.They were also allowed to arrest soldiers and citizens involved in street disturbances.The slottsrätt acted somewhere in between the city and military jurisdiction, because its members consisted of officers and burghers.The county governor also participated in its sessions. 23uch duality within the legal system was not unusual.The situation was the same in all Swedish garrison towns, and also in many other European countries. 24owever, the multitude of regimental courts martial made the system rather special.For instance, if a citizen wanted to sue a soldier, he had to find out which regiment that soldier belonged to.The task was relatively easy when the only regiments in town were garrisons, because the townsfolk would probably have come to recognise the uniforms of the different regiments.But how many citizens were able to tell the difference between a soldier from Dalecarlia and Savolax, for instance, just by looking at their uniforms?
The distribution of work between city courts and military courts was not arbitrary -quite the contrary.It was based on several laws and royal orders, the most important of which was the Articles of War, enacted in 1683.The Swedish Legal Code of 1734 was also important in that respect.The basic rule was as follows: all individuals belonging to the military came under military jurisdiction.This also included civilians -in the modern sense of the word -such as officers' servants, provision merchants (marketentare), the wives and children of soldiers and NCOs as well as bureaucrats working for the regiments.Military courts were also entitled to sentence officers.That was not the case in Prussia, for instance, where military courts had legal capacity only vis-à-vis soldiers and NCOs.RCM were not, however, entitled to convict noblemen, be they officers or ordinary soldiers, if the crime concerned life, honour or God.Such cases had to be sent to the GCM. 25 There were, however, some exceptions.Tenure soldiers were subject to civil jurisdiction when they were at home in the countryside.The same applied for soldiers on leave, although legal usage was variable.Once or twice the Treasure's Court interpreted that soldiers on leave were still in the service of the crown and hence subject to military jurisdiction.On the other hand, sometimes the RCM transferred cases to the city courts if the accused was a soldier on leave. 26estaurant keepers and publicans selling food and drink in Sveaborg were interesting borderline cases.They were often former soldiers or NCOs who had left military service -probably because selling beer to soldiers was more lucrative than serving in the army.These former soldiers acquired groceries from the local burghers, but they did not consider themselves civilians -at least not in the courtroom -because they worked for the army and received orders from officers.However, in the eyes of the Treasure's Court they were townsfolk.There were several reasons for this interpretation.First of all, the restaurant keepers of Sveaborg were not provision merchants who would follow the army to the battlefield.Secondly, they did not practice their business for their own benefit but for the burghers of the town.In other words, they were considered the equivalent of a burgher's shop assistant.Finally, the fortress of Sveaborg was part of the judicial district of Helsinki, and consequently all restaurant keepers and publicans came under the supervision of the magistrate.Former NCOs did not appreciate these interpretations.Sven Frimodig, a former Sergeant Major of the Österbottens regemente (Ostrobothnia Infantry Regiment / tenure), argued in court that he was not in the service of the bourgeoisie -such a claim was insulting -bearing in mind that he had served the Royal Majesty and the Crown for many years. 27s far as subject matter is concerned, legislation as well as legal usage was also variable.All offences against the Articles of War (1683) were ultimately brought to the courts martial.Desertion, theft, violence, drunkenness and insubordination were typical examples of such offences.Sometimes the military courts convicted people of offences that were also punishable according to civil law, such as Sab-bath crime or fornication, if the crime was committed during military service or in the military zone.The practice was contradictory, however, particularly as regards sexual crimes and civil cases, such as debts and divorces.The majority of these cases were brought to city courts, though on a number of occasions the offences were dealt with in the regimental courts martial.In this respect, the distribution of work was clarified in 1791 when all civil cases were separated from the military courts.As for gambling and duelling crimes, legislation was clear by the mideighteenth century: gambling cases were to be heard at the district or city courts regardless of the social position of the accused; offences against the duelling bill were solved at the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) if the duellers were noblemen. 28

Soldiers at the Military Courts
The records of the military courts have been used rather actively in studies dealing with violence committed by soldiers.However, Johan Söderberg's article concerning soldiers' criminality at the Svea Life Guards is, to my knowledge, the only research to deal with overall criminality in Swedish garrison towns.Söderberg's study asserts that the most common crimes among soldiers in 1681 were violence and sexual crimes.More than half of all cases were related to these offences. 29n mid-eighteenth-century Helsinki, however, the most typical offences in the military courts were desertion and property crime (see Table 1).More than 80 percent of convictions were related to these crimes, just like in late eighteenthcentury Copenhagen.We should recall at this juncture that there are some notable gaps in the source material, though the overview would probably not change even if the material were inclusive, because the differences are so clear.
The frequency of desertion and property crimes is linked to the realities of the construction work at the fortress.The soldiers were far from home, they were badly paid, the work was hard at times and their motivation was low.Some of the soldiers, especially tenure soldiers, openly stated in the courtroom that they deserted because they missed their wife and children or because the workload was too heavy.Moreover, the forthcoming war in Pomerania further raised levels of desertion at the end of the 1750s.Dozens of enlisted soldiers escaped to the countryside or to Russia, notably in 1757.The most desperate deserters must have been Henrich Maratz, Ernest Bennick, Gottfried Esch and Anders Krebs, four German-born soldiers who tried to escape to their homeland in a small boat entirely unsuitable for such an endeavour.They were caught at the archipelago of Sipoo only around 20 kilometres from Helsinki. 30 that some deserters were sentenced to hard labour at the fortress -this time with a chain (halsjärn) around their necks.
As for crimes against property, the figures should be nuanced to some extent before drawing any conclusions.First of all, most offences in this category were thefts.There were only three cases related to other types of offences (i.e. two deceptions and one forgery).Secondly, soldiers typically stole from their fellow soldiers or from army warehouses (see fig. 1).One way or another, nearly 70 percent of all thefts concerned the military, and this is understandable: soldiers stole goods that were easily accessible to them, such as meat and bread from the crown storehouses, gunpowder from the arsenal or money and clothes from the barracks.
Stolen goods were normally sold to other soldiers or soldiers' wives as well as to peasants in the surrounding countryside.Sometimes the goods were sold to citizens like local craftsmen, their wives and journeymen.Even burghers bought stolen items, like trader Pehr Hansson Sunn, who purchased a powder keg from artilleryman Paul Svedman in October 1755 and resold it to burgher Bremer from Åbo. 31 It should be noted here that all kinds of trading with soldiers was strictly forbidden by a Royal Order given on 24 April 1745, but this did not prevent the townsfolk from indulging in transactions. 32One reason might have been the heavy inflation across Sweden during the 1750s.Moreover, it is likely that the prices of groceries were especially high in Helsinki as the arrival of the regiments increased demand significantly. 33g. 1.Thefts in Helsinki (1748-1757) Source: Table 1.How did the soldiers manage to get the goods in the first place?One of the best opportunities to commit crimes was during a watch in the corps-de-garde, the warehouses, the barracks etc.This explanation may sound paradoxical, but that was the case; foxes were guarding the chicken coop.Once, for instance, a tenure soldier named Göran Springberg (Ostrobothnia Regiment) had stolen money and clothes from his comrades-in-arms while guarding the sick barrack.Two of his victims were already dead when the crime was committed, and the others were seriously ill. 34Another theft of a similar kind occurred in November 1757, when the 36-year-old German-born soldier Blomendorf (Hamilton Regiment) and the 24-year-old artilleryman Carl Laurin stole 31 boards from the market place by the corps-de-garde.Boards belong to the crown and Blomendorf was supposed to keep watch over them, which, clearly, he did not.The crime was committed in three phases.Somewhere at the end of October 1757 the comrades first stole four boards, then later on another eight boards, and sold them all to a local burgher named Henrik Hallin; around two weeks later they stole a further 19 boards, but this time Laurin and Blomendorf were caught red-handed.This time, too, they had planned to sell the booty to the same burgher.As for Hallin, he tried to deny his complicity in court -at first he did not even want to appear at the RCM, because he did not consider it his proper court.However, there were too many witnesses to his actions, and he was convicted of purchasing stolen goods. 35hefts were also committed during assignments, something that testifies to the fact that supervision of the construction work at Sveaborg was far from easy.The case of Johan Bergman is an illustrative example.Bergman, a 30-year-old soldier from the Cronhielm Regiment, was accused of having stolen eight hundred nails during the autumn of 1756 while he was detailed to cover the walls with boards at Sveaborg.According to his own story, he had collected the nails little by little in a pouch kept behind a brick pile at the Bastion Cedercreutz.He also confessed that he had sold 60 nails to an unknown Finnish peasant together with soldier Lars Berg of the same regiment.As compensation, they were given some bread, meat and a couple of coins.It appeared during the investigation that Lars Berg had been punished for trading with suspicious persons once before. 36ot even were the barracks safe.On the night between the 10 th and 11 th July 1755, Sven Kierström, a soldier from the Hamilton Regiment, broke into the Bastion Hårleman and stole a wallet from Sergeant Carl Christian Påhlman's trousers.Kierström clearly knew what he was doing, as the wallet was full of Swedish and foreign money, e.g.roubles, Danish crowns, Dutch guldens, Lüneburg guldens, Görtz daler and karoliner, up to 40 silver dalers.Subsequently he changed the money into Swedish currency with help from several soldiers and soldiers' wives from various regiments.He also used the stolen money to buy cigars from the burgher Sunn's shop at Sveaborg and some beer and fish from a tavern. 37everal times a year the thieving extended into the town as well.Enlisted soldiers were especially active in this respect; I have found only three cases in which the culprit was a tenure soldier.This difference may be due to the social background of enlisted soldiers; at least a number of contemporary writers thought that way.In 1770 an unknown writer commented in the newspaper Inrikes Tidningar that criminality had recently increased in the Southern provinces of Finland (Nyland and Tavastehus län) because of the large numbers of enlisted soldiers, who according to the writer were mostly of foreign descent. 38Such a connection is difficult to prove, however, with the source material used in this article.
Another, more practical explanation for the differences was the fact that the enlisted garrison regiments were responsible for keeping watch in the city, which meant that the soldiers had ample opportunity to commit criminal acts.Nearly all thefts were committed by watchmen who had left their guard duty at night when the city was sleeping and broken into burghers' houses.Typical targets were unlocked attics and outbuildings.
The difference is also explained by the fact that artillery soldiers lived at the burghers' houses during the 1750s and, as a consequence, they had good opportunities to locate any possible booty, at least compared to those soldiers who lived in the barracks.The connection is best exemplified by a case that was tried at the regimental court martial of the Artillery in March 1751.The claimant of the case was driver Anders Lindström, whose daughter Christina Lindström complained that artilleryman Carl Gustav Lideman had broken into her father's warehouse with a picklock and taken one lispund of butter and seven pounds of smoked meat.The crime was revealed because Lideman's comrades Erling and Brandkulla, to whom he had sold the groceries, gave Lideman up after having heard that the theft was announced in the church.Lideman admitted the crime in the court and explained that he had heard about the booty from artilleryman Hans Wetterberg, who was able to tell him the exact location of the meat and butter in the warehouse.According to Christina Lindström, this assumption was plausible because Wetterberg's foreman lived at the Lindströms' house and Wetterberg frequented the house.In addition, she suspected that Wetterberg had stolen smoked meat from the same warehouse previously.She was not, however, able to substantiate this accusation and Wetterberg was cleared of the charges. 39he records of the military courts are full of similar cases, and citizens were evidently unable to trust that their property was safe after the armed forces had arrived in town.At the same time, the townsfolk could live quite securely as far as violent crime was concerned.I have found only two fights between soldiers and civilians from the military courts, and both were related to antagonism between two or three persons.Fights between soldiers seem rare too: only two soldiers were convicted of assaulting another soldier.Furthermore, it should be noted that homicides were non-existent.Two soldiers were accused of manslaughter but the charges turned out to be groundless because the victims had died of illnesses. 40he insignificance of violent crimes is accentuated when the citizens' offences are taken into consideration too: I have found a total of 55 cases from the city courts in which civilians were accused of violence, and in ten such cases soldiers acted as the claimant.I have not calculated the exact number of convictions because the figure would not be comparable to that of Table 1.It seems, however, that the townsfolk were more inclined to violence than the soldiers. 41he infrequency of violence was, at least to some extent, related to the mobility of the soldiers.The tenure regiments stayed in town only for short periods and soldiers spent most of their time at the construction sites.The garrison regiments came to Helsinki to stay, but the men came mostly from Sweden and had no contact with the local population before their arrival.In addition, the size of the civil population in Helsinki was very low compared to that in, say, Stockholm and Copenhagen.As a consequence, there was no seedbed for strong rivalries between the civil and military populations.Moreover, it has been argued that troops in general were more disciplined during the eighteenth century than during the seventeenth century. 42

Soldiers at the City Courts of Helsinki
It was not unusual to see soldiers and officers in the courtroom of the local city hall.In total 770 cases were heard at the Treasure's Court in 1749 and between 1752 and 1757, 170 of these cases involving soldiers either as defendant or claimant. 43In addition, soldiers often acted as witnesses in conflicts and disputes between the townsfolk.At the same time, only 25 soldiers were sentenced during those seven years, seven times fewer than in the military courts (see Table 2).With regard to thefts, for instance, the figure is so low -only three -that it bears no statistical significance for the general overview.However, the records of the city courts are worth investigating because they open up some new perspectives vis-à-vis soldiers' criminality and the functioning of the legal system.
Interestingly, two new figures emerge, namely soldiers on leave and soldiers' wives.Their role in overall criminality was low; the number of convictions was only nine in total.Nevertheless, these cases show that soldiers on leave and soldiers' wives were also active in the unofficial economy described above.In March 1757, for instance, an enlisted soldier named Johan Forss (Hamilton Regiment), who had been sent to work at the shop belonging to burgher Carl Magnus Sunn while on leave, was accused of having stolen several items from the shop in league with Sunn's shop assistant Isac Skogster.At the same time, Forss also became involved in another theft, this time with soldier Johan Lindman from the same regiment.Lindman had stolen clothes from several unlocked attics, including the residence of the governor and the houses of pharmacist Tingelund and Sergeant Major Sven Frimodig, and hidden the booty in a chest at his own residence.Forss had also asked his wife Eva Maria Starck to give some of the clothes to soldier Joseph Mälster's wife, Bengta Nilsdotter, to sell.It appeared during the hearing that Bengta had sold stolen items of clothing to several persons, mostly wives of craftsmen and soldiers who, according to their own testimonies, could not sus- pect Bengta, because she was a known peddler (klädmånglerska) allowed to sell used clothes in town. 44 similar case was tried at the Treasure's Court in October 1756.The case centred around inspector Johan Boström's cow, which had been stolen while pasturing on an island called Högholmen.Boström suspected that the crime had been carried out by Petter Nyberg, a corporal on leave from the Cronhielm Regiment, and his wife Ingeborg Catharina Nyberg.He based his suspicion on the fact that the Nybergs had sold fresh meat to several people around the time of the theft.The corporal's wife answered the charges by admitting that they had sold meat to soldiers working at the brick factory located at the cavalry farm (rusthåll) in Munksnäs in the vicinity of the town, but that there was nothing illegal in that.She had the right to sell fresh meat in the town.She also claimed that the meat was not stolen.It was bought from an unknown man, who had smuggled the meat through octroi in a sack of turnips.The court did not believe her story and began to investigate the case by hearing other witnesses.
Interesting details came up during the investigation.First of all, the Nybergs were inconsistent in their statements.The corporal first said that the soldiers had bought the meat from Lars Dufwa of the Nylands läns infanteriregemente (Nyland Infantry Regiment / tenure), but later on, once the soldiers had heard about the theft, he admitted having acquired the meat from a tenure soldier from the parish of Espoo or Kirkkonummi -he could not remember which of the two.It also transpired that Petter and Ingeborg Nyberg had peddled meat in Munknäs at least twice before the latest incident, and that the meat had always been badly managed.Testimonies proved that the animals were evidently slaughtered outside, because the meat was full of grass and lingonberry sprigs and that the slaughters were not carried out in a conventional way.According to one witness, the meat was so dirty that it was only good for soup.
The theft case was heard several times at the Treasure's Court at the end of 1756.Yet, the court was unable to pass sentence as it wished to hear more witnesses, and at some point the case disappeared from the court records for unknown reasons.As a consequence, it is impossible to determine whether the Nybergs had stolen the cow or not.However, the case shows unquestionably that animals were slaughtered outside the slaughterhouses and that meat was sold outside the marketplace. 45he reason why soldiers on leave and their wives became involved in blackmarketeering is evident: the army did not pay soldiers while they were on leave, and consequently they had to find additional ways of earning a living.Quite often soldiers were sent to work for local manufacturers or burghers, like Johan Forss, but their salary must have been low judging from the fact that soldiers had to resort to illegal means.As for soldiers' wives, they seemed to work as peddlers selling bread, meat, clothes and buttons to civilians.Their legal position was vague, however.They were not provision merchants working for the army, but they probably did not hold a licence given by the Magistrate either.Most likely the civil authorities simply allowed soldiers' wives to practice their businesses as they had no other sources of livelihood.Furthermore, the origin of their merchandise remains obscure.It might be that they procured their goods from local butchers and bakers, though now and then they evidently sold stolen goods too.Thus, soldiers' wives had an essential role to play in the black markets.
An extreme example of their activity in the unofficial economy took place in January 1752.At that time, soldier's wife Christina Ågreen persuaded maid Catharina Hagberg to have a sexual encounter with two NCOs at the Broberg's barracks and to steal money and clothes from trader Olof Dahlström, her master.After the crimes, Ågreen accommodated Hagberg at her home for a fee.It is impossible to deduce from the court records whether the NCOs paid something to Ågreen or Hagberg, because prostitution was not illegal, and consequently the court had no interest in investigating the matter.The prosecutor was interested in Hagberg's gross indecency and in Ågreen's complicity.However, the case is the only example I have found which resembles prostitution at least to some extent. 46n addition to thefts, the city courts also tried cases related to illicit trading with peasants from the surrounding countryside, which was another side of the unofficial economy.In October 1754 the town prosecutor Michel Mäther accused two peasants of selling an ox, a cow and three lispund of butter to Corporal Olof Malmberg outside the octroi.The peasants claimed that they planned to sell the animals at market, but it appeared during the hearing that the transaction had already been made before they arrived in town.These cases, however, are few in number at the Treasure's Court during the 1750s, probably because the civil authorities had no legal means to interfere in such trading.Officers were entitled to send soldiers to the countryside to trade with peasants and other suppliers in order to provision the army. 47y far the most common crime of which soldiers were accused at the city courts was sexual crime, especially fornication.This is not as apparent from the statistics concerning convictions as it is from the charges heard at the Treasure's Court.According to the records of the city courts, only four soldiers or officers were convicted of fornication between 1749 and 1757 (excluding 1750-1751).But when attention is directed at the specific charges, the situation looks totally different.There were a total of 44 cases in which a soldier was charged of fornica-tion during those same years.Some of these charges might have been made-up, but nonetheless, the difference between charges and convictions is considerable.
There were two reasons for this discrepancy.In most cases this was due to the fact that the soldiers in question had already left the town for various reasons.They might have already marched home with their regiment or they might even have deserted the army.In such cases the court decided to contact the regiment in order to make the soldier answer the charges, but it is rather probable that such demands were unsuccessful.At any rate, these cases were not brought to justice before 1757.In some cases, it was impossible to convict soldiers because the women accused of fornication were unable or did not wish to provide any names, saying only that their accomplice was 'an unknown soldier' or 'an unknown soldier from Österbottens Regemente'.
The comparison between charges and conviction rates for fornication reveals one of the most characteristic features of the legal system in Helsinki during the mid-eighteenth century, namely the mobility of soldiers.Regiments, especially tenure regiments but to some extent also enlisted regiments, stayed in Helsinki only for short periods of time, thus presenting a challenge to the local court system, and very often the soldiers in question managed to get away without conviction.However, this conclusion applies only in the case of fornication.When it came to other offences, it seems that soldiers were unable to avoid going to court.

Soldiers at the Castle Court
The significance of the slottsrätten (Castle Court) remained modest during the first construction period of Sveaborg, as this special court was not founded until March 1755 and the first session was held on 15 July that year.In addition, the court did not assemble between July 1756 and March 1758 (at least, there are no records to that effect), which means that all cases in this sample took place between July 1755 and June 1756.During those eleven months the slottsrätten dealt with a total of seven cases in which four soldiers were convicted of six different offences (see Table 3).All seven cases were of a similar kind: the offences took place in the streets and invariably involved enlisted soldiers or fire watches, who patrolled the town at night.
Though the sample is insignificant, it is possible to draw one conclusion: relations between enlisted soldiers and fire watches were tense.The two groups did not get along.The main reason behind such discord may have been the fact that the soldiers evidently did not respect the civil authorities, and consequently it was almost impossible for the authorities to keep watch over soldiers' actions.Mats Berglund notes the same phenomenon when discussing the prevalence of street fights in Stockholm. 48 wrangle between enlisted soldier Lars Liedman and fire watch Henrik Lang is an illustrative example of such rivalries.The incident took place in July 1755 when one Lars Liedman visited with his friend at the fire watches' guardhouse to buy drinks, presumably beer, from a watch named Treffenberg who kept stock of drinks there.Lars Liedman was not on his evening furlough while searching for the alcohol but on watch at the corps-de-garde.However, his behaviour was not considered blameworthy.When Liedman drank his beer at the guardhouse -a special sort of public house indeed!-he saw another fire watch, Henrik Lang, heavily drunken, lying on the board and said to him: 'Well, there lies the crazy carpenter!'With this mysterious utterance Liedman referred to the fact that Lang had suffered a special sort of public humiliation during the daytime: he had ridden a wooden mare (trämärren) located in front of the corps-de-garde.The slander made Lang angry and he stood up and started to insult Liedman: 'What are you doing here so late?You are all shameful scoundrels ("skälmar, hundsfottar och kanaljer") in the Cronhielm Regiment, and you have been whipped as punishment many times!' Liedman answered that he has never been punished of any offence -unlike Lang -but that he had served honourably.In addition, he advised Lang to go home and sleep.At this suggestion Lang assaulted Liedman and tried to push him out of the door.This resulted in Lang's arrest and in legal action in which he was sentenced to prison for eight days with only bread and water.It is worth mentioning that his punishment was based on the Articles of War, which means that fire watches were tried under military jurisdiction. 49olence

Table 2 .
Crimes of the military population at the Treasures' Court and Magistrates' Court  (1749, 1752-1757)