The Newgate Calendar Vol. 5

THE NEWGATE CALENDAR

Edited by Donal Ó Danachair

Volume 5

Published by the Ex-classics Project, 2009 

http://www.exclassics.com 

Public Domain

An Execution at Newgate

CONTENTS

RENWICK WILLIAMS Commonly called "The Monster." Convicted 13th Of  

December, 1790, of a brutal and wanton Assault on Miss Ann Porter 11 

JOHN BELVILLE Convicted at the Old Bailey, 16th of February, 1791, for a  

Robbery from "the Dwelling-House of her Majesty, called Buckingham House" 16 

WILLIAM GADESBY Executed for Robbery 17 

BARTHOLOMEW QUAILN Executed, after a great Legal Argument, on 7th of  

March, 1791, in the Isle of Ely, for the Murder of his Wife. 19 

JOSEPH WOOD AND THOMAS UNDERWOOD Two Fourteen-year-old Boys,  

executed at Newgate, 6th of July, 1791, for robbing another Boy 21 

NATHANIEL LILLEY, JAMES MARTIN, MARY BRIANT, WILLIAM ALLEN,  

AND JOHN BUTCHER Convicted of Returning from Transportation 22 

JOSEPH LORRISON Known among Thieves as "Jumping Joe." Executed on  

Kennington Common, 8th of August, 1792, for Robbery on the Highway 24 

THE REV. RICHARD BURGH, JOHN CUMMINGS, ESQ., CAPTAIN IN THE  

ARMY, TOWNLEY M'CAN, ESQ., STUDENT OF LAW, JAMES DAVIS AND  

JOHN BOURNE Convicted of a Conspiracy to set fire to the King's Bench Prison,  

February, 1793 25 

THE REV. MR JACKSON Convicted of Treason, in Dublin, 23rd of April, 1793, but  

who died of Poison at the Bar of the Court, at the Moment Death would have been  

pronounced upon him 28 

LAURENCE JONES A Notorious Swindler, sentenced to Death in 1793, but who  

hanged himself Three Days before the Date of his Execution 30 

ELIZABETH MARSH A Fifteen-year-old Girl, executed for the Murder of her  

Grandfather, March, 1794 32 

HENRY GOODIFF A Boy condemned to Death for robbing a Pieman, who had  

swindled him on Hounslow Heath, of a few Halfpence, March, 1794 33 

ANNE BROADRIC Indicted for murdering a Man who had jilted her for another  

Woman, 17th of July, 1794 34 

LEWIS JEREMIAH AVERSHAW Executed on Kennington Common, 3rd of August,  

1795, for shooting a Peace Officer in the act of apprehending him 37 

KID WAKE Convicted and imprisoned for an assault upon his Majesty, on the 20th  

of February, 1796 41 

RICHARD PARKER The Chief of the Mutineers in the British Fleet. Executed at the  

Yardarm of L'Espion Man-of-War in 1796, at Sheerness 42 

WILLIAM LEE Executed before Newgate, 20th of April, 1796, for Burglary 47 

HENRY WESTON Betrayed his Employer's Confidence, committed Forgery, and  

was executed before Newgate, 6th of July, 1796 48 

CHARLES SCOLDWELL A Sheriff Officer, convicted of stealing Two Ducks, and  

sentenced on 23rd of July, 1796, to Transportation for Seven Years 50 

JOHN CLARKE Executed near Bromley, in Kent, 29th of July, 1796, for murdering  

a Dairymaid 52 

JOSEPH HODGES AND RICHARD PROBIN Convicted at the Old Bailey, 1796, of  

a Confidence Trick called Cross-Dropping, and sentenced to Transportation 53 

SARAH PENELOPE STANLEY The Female Trooper, convicted at the Old Bailey,  

in October Sessions, 1796, of Petty Larceny 55 

JAMES M'KEAN Executed for Murder, 25th of January, 1797, at Glasgow 56 

MARTIN CLENCH AND JAMES MACKLEY Believed to be innocent of a Charge  

of Murder, they were executed before Newgate, 5th of June, 1797, after the Gallows  

collapsed 57 

REBECCA HOWARD Executed at Norwich, 27th of August, 1797, for the Murder of  

her Illegitimate Child 59 

THERESA PHIPOE Executed before Newgate, 11th of December, 1797, for Murder 

60 

GEORGE WALDRON, alias BARRINGTON The Gentleman-Pickpocket. Several  

times convicted, Sentenced twice to hard labour on the Thames, and finally, on  

September 27, 1798, transported to Botany Bay 62 

ROBERT LADBROKE TROYT A Boy of Seventeen, executed before Newgate, 28th  

of November, 1798, for Forgery, his First Offence 70 

JAMES TURNBULL A Private Soldier, executed before Newgate, 15th of May,  

1799, for robbing the Mint 71 

MARGARET HUGHES Executed at Canterbury, 4th of July, 1799, for murdering  

her Husband 72 

JAMES BRODIE A Blind Man, who was executed in 1800 for the Murder of his Boy  

Guide 73 

RICHARD FERGUSON "Galloping Dick," convicted at the Lent Assizes, 1800, at  

Aylesbury, and executed for a Highway Robbery 74 

SARAH LLOYD Convicted of Larceny in April, 1800, and executed in spite of  

Extraordinary Efforts to get her reprieved 78 

JAMES HADFIELD Tried for shooting at his Majesty George III. at Drury Lane  

Theatre, on Thursday, 15th of May, 1800 81 

THOMAS CHALFONT A Post-Office Sorter, executed before Newgate, 11th of  

November, 1800, for stealing a Bank-Note out of a Letter 83 

JAMES RILEY AND ROBERT NUTTS Executed before Newgate, 24th of June,  

1801, for Highway Robbery 84 

JOSEPH WALL, ESQ. Formerly Governor of Goree. Executed 28th of January,  

1802, nearly Twenty Years after committing the Crime, for ordering a Soldier to be  

flogged to Death 85 

HENRY COCK Executed before Newgate, 23rd of June, 1802 for Forgery, whereby  

he swindled his Benefactor's Estate 88 

WILLIAM CODLIN Executed 27th of November, 1802, for scuttling a Ship, of which  

he was Captain 90 

GEORGE FOSTER Executed at Newgate, 18th of January, 1803, for the Murder of  

his Wife and Child, by drowning them in the Paddington Canal; with a Curious  

Account of Galvanic Experiments on his Body 94 

COLONEL EDWARD MARCUS DESPARD, JOHN FRANCIS, JOHN WOOD,  

THOMAS BROUGHTON, JAMES SEDGWICK WRATTON, ARTHUR GRAHAM  

AND JOHN MACNAMARA Executed in Horsemonger Lane, Southwark, 21st of  

February, 1803, for High Treason 99 

JOHN TERRY AND JOSEPH HEALD Executed under Extraordinary  

Circumstances at York, 21st of March, 1803, for Murder 105 

CAPTAIN MACNAMARA Who killed Colonel Montgomery in a Duel arising out of  

a Quarrel about Dogs, and was acquitted on a Charge of Manslaughter 107 

ROBERT SMITH Executed before Newgate for robbing Coachmen on the Highway,  

8th of June, 1803 110 

JOHN HATFIELD "The Keswick Impostor." Executed at Carlisle, 3rd of September,  

1803, for Forgery; with Particulars of the once celebrated "Beauty of Buttermere," a  

victim to his Villainy. 112 

FRANCIS SMITH Condemned to Death on 13th of January, 1804, for the Murder of  

the supposed Hammersmith Ghost, but pardoned soon afterwards 116 

ANN HURLE Executed before Newgate, 8th of February, 1804, for Forgery, at the  

Age of Twenty-two 120 

ROBERT ASLETT Assistant Cashier of the Bank of England. Condemned to Death  

for embezzling Exchequer Bills to a Large Amount, entrusted to his Charge, and  

respited during his Majesty's Pleasure, 18th of November, 1804 122 

RICHARD HAYWOOD A Violent and Hardened Sinner, who was executed along  

with John Tennant, before Newgate, 30th of April, 1805, for Robbery 125 

HENRY PERFECT A most plausible Begging-Letter Swindler, transported to Botany  

Bay, in April, 1805 127 

ELIZABETH BARBER ALIAS DALY Who smoked her Pipe after murdering a  

Pensioner. Executed near Maidstone, 25th of May, 1805 128 

WILLIAM CUBITT Executed in November, 1805, for stealing valuable Jewellery  

from the Earl of Mansfield 129 

THOMAS PICTON, ESQ. Late Governor of Trinidad. Convicted 24th of February,  

1806, of applying Torture, in order to extort Confession from a Girl 130 

RICHARD PATCH Executed on the Top of the New Prison, in the Borough of  

Southwark, 8th of April, 1806, for Murder, after a Trial at which accommodation was  

provided for the Royal Family 137 

CHARLES HEMMINGS AND GEORGE BEVAN Bogus Bow Street Officers who  

robbed a Clergyman, and were executed, April, 1806 139 

JOHN DOCKE ROUVELETT ALIAS ROMNEY After maliciously prosecuting a  

Woman he was executed at Ilchester, at the Summer Assizes, 1806, in Somersetshire,  

for Forgery 140 

JOHN HOLLOWAY AND OWEN HAGGERTY A Hundred Spectators were killed  

or injured in a Crush at the Execution of these Men before Newgate, 22nd of  

February, 1807 145 

JOHN MAYCOCK Executed 23rd of March, 1807, on the Top of the New Jail,  

Horsemonger Lane, Southwark, for the Murder Of an old lone Lady, Mrs Ann Pooley,  

in company with John Pope, who was admitted Evidence for the Crown. 151 

WILLIAM DUNCAN Convicted for the Murder of his Master, William Chivers,  

Esq., and transported for Life, March, 1807 153 

GEORGE ALLEN An Epileptic, who was executed at Stafford, 30th of March, 1807,  

for the Murder of his Three Children 154 

MARTHA ALDEN Executed, 31st of July, 1807, for murdering her Husband in a  

Cottage near Attleborough, Norfolk 156 

ROBERT POWELL A Starving Fortune-Teller, who was convicted by the Middlesex  

Magistrates of being a Rogue and Vagabond, 1807 159 

JOHN ALMOND Convicted at the December Sessions, 1807, of forging a Will, and  

executed before Newgate 162 

RICHARD OWEN Convicted of Cross-Dropping, and sentenced to Transportation,  

at the Old Bailey, January Sessions, 1808 164 

WILLIAM WALKER A Soldier in the Middlesex Militia. Sentenced to Death for a  

Highway Robbery of Sixpence and a Penny-Piece, but reprieved at the Request of his  

Victim, February, 1808 165 

THOMAS SIMMONS Executed at Hertford, 7th of March, 1808, for a Double  

Murder 166 

JOHN SHEPHERD Convicted, at Lancaster, of a Riot and setting fire to the Prison,  

June, 1808 168 

HECTOR CAMPBELL, ESQ. Fined and imprisoned, in the Year 1808, for acting as  

a Physician without a Licence 170 

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, ESQ. Brevet-Major in the Army, and a Captain in the  

21st Regiment of Foot. Executed 24th of August, 1808, at Armagh, in Ireland, for  

murdering a Brother Official, whom he killed in a Duel 172 

JAMES WOOD Convicted at the Cumberland Summer Assizes, 1808, and executed  

for a Double Murder 174 

JAMES INWOOD Convicted of Manslaughter in killing William Goodman, who had  

been detected in robbing a fishery, October, 1808 176 

JOHN RYAN AND MATHEW KEARINGE Executed in Ireland, for Arson and  

Murder, 1808 178 

THE REV. ABRAHAM ASHWORTH Sentenced in 1808 to Three Years'  

Imprisonment in Lancaster Jail, for ill-treating his Female Pupils 179 

JOHN NICHOLLS A Wholesale Bank-Note Forger, convicted at the January  

Sessions at the Old Bailey, 1809, and executed before Newgate 180 

MARGARET CRIMES ALIAS BARRINGTON Executed before Newgate, 22nd of  

February, 1809, for taking a False Oath, and thereby obtaining Letters of  

Administration to the Effects of a Soldier 182 

MARY BATEMAN Commonly called the Yorkshire Witch, Executed for Murder 183 

HENRY HUNT A Driver of the Norwich Mail. Convicted of stealing a Gold Watch  

sent by his Coach, 8th of April, 1809 191 

WILLIAM PROUDLOVE AND GEORGE GLOVER Executed at Chester, 28th of  

May, 1809, for Salt-Stealing, after a First Attempt to hang them had failed 192 

CAPTAIN JOHN SUTHERLAND Commander of the British Armed Transport, The  

Friends. Executed at Execution Dock, on the Banks of the Thames, 29th of June, 1809,  

for the Murder of his Cabin-Boy. 194 

HENRY WHITE AND JAMES SMITH Well-equipped and armed Burglars, who  

were sentenced to Death at the Old Bailey, 3rd of July, 1809 196 

WILLIAM HEWITT Fined Five Hundred Pounds, and imprisoned, at the Old Bailey  

Sessions, in October, 1809, for enticing an English Artificer to leave his Country and  

emigrate to the United States of North America 197 

EDWARD EDWARDS A Young but Artful Thief, transported for stealing privately  

from a Shop in London, October, 1809 198 

JAMES MARLBOROUGH, AND SARAH, HIS WIFE Imprisoned for Gross  

Cruelty to their Child, 8th of December, 1809 199 

GEORGE WEBB Son of a Clergyman, and a Notorious Burglar. Executed on  

Shooter's Hill, near London, 1809 200 

RICHARD TURNER A Young but Artful Swindler, transported to Botany Bay for  

Fourteen years for cheating a Young Lady 203 

JOHN LUMLEY Imprisoned, and whipped through the Streets of the Borough of  

Southwark, for stealing Pewter Pint-Pots from Public-Houses, January, 1810 204 

THOMAS PUGH AND ELIZABETH PUGH Convicted at the London Sessions, 20th  

of January, 1810, and sentenced to Imprisonment for a Conspiracy, in what is called "  

Child-Dropping " 206 

HENRY CLARKE Convicted at the Old Bailey, 20th of February, 1810, for robbing  

a Mail-Coach, and sentenced to Death 207 

WILLIAM COLMAN A Convict on board the Hulks, at Woolwich. Executed on  

Pennington Heath, 26th of March, 1810, for the Murder of a Fellow-Prisoner 208 

WILLIAM COOPER AND WILLIAM DRAPER Convicted of cutting off Trunks  

from a Gentleman's Carriage; the Former was transported for Seven Years, and the  

Latter imprisoned for Six Months in the House of Correction, 1810 209 

RICHARD FAULKNER A Boy, executed at Wisbech, in 1810, for the Murder of  

another Lad of Twelve Years of Age 210 

EDWARD WILLIAM ROBERTS, - BROWN, and DOROTHY COLE, alias MRS  

BROWN Convicted in the Court of King's Bench, of a conspiracy, and the two first  

imprisoned and pilloried 211 

RICHARD VALENTINE THOMAS Executed at the New Prison, in Horsemonger  

Lane, 3rd of September, 1810, for Forgery 215 

HENRY GRIFFIN Indicted at the Old Bailey, at the September Sessions, 1810, for  

the Murder of his Wife, found guilty of Manslaughter, and fined 216 

WILLIAM HITCHIN Transported for Seven Years for stealing an Exchequer Bill,  

September, 1810 217 

THOMAS BELLAMY AND JOHN LANEY Watchmen, convicted of assaulting  

those whom they were bound to protect, September, 1810 218 

JOHN DAVISON, ESQ. A Captain in the Royal Marines, convicted of stealing a  

Piece of Muslin from a Shopkeeper at Taunton, 13th of November, 1810 219 

MARY JONES AND ELIZABETH PAINE Transported for Seven Years, November  

Sessions, 1810, at the Old Bailey for Shoplifting 222 

THOMAS KIMPTON Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, December, 1810 of a  

Violent Assault on a Juryman of the Court Leet, and sentenced to Imprisonment 223 

WILLIAM BRITTON Convicted at the Sessions at the Old Bailey, December, 1810,  

of stealing from a coffee-house bedroom, and sentenced to transportation 224 

JOSEPH MOSES Convicted in 1811 of receiving the Skins of Royal Swans from the  

Serpentine River, in Hyde Park, knowing them to have been stolen 225 

EDWARD BEAZLEY A Boy, whipped in Newgate for destroying Women's Apparel  

with Aqua Fortis, 11th of March, 1811 227 

WILLIAM TOWNLEY Convicted of Burglary, and executed at Gloucester, 23rd of  

March, 1811, a Few Minutes before a Reprieve arrived 228 

MICHAEL WHITING Methodist Preacher, sentenced to Death for poisoning his  

Two Brothers-in-Law, with an Intent to possess himself of their Property, 1811 229 

RICHARD ARMITAGE AND C. THOMAS Clerks in the Bank of England,  

executed before Newgate, 24th of June, 1811, for Forgery 230 

MARY GREEN Convicted of putting off Base Coin, and sentenced to Six Months'  

Imprisonment, 5th of April, 1811 232 

THE HONOURABLE ARTHUR WILLIAM HODGE One of the Members of his  

Majesty's Council in Tortola, an Island subject to Great Britain, in the West Indies,  

executed there on the 8th of May, 1811, for the Murder of his Negro Slave 233 

THOMAS LEACH AND ELIZABETH, HIS WIFE The Former transported for  

uttering Forged Bank-Notes, and the Latter condemned to Death, July, 1811 241 

JOHN STANLEY, THOMAS JEFFRY, W. BRAINE AND WILLIAM BRUNT  

London Boot Operatives who were imprisoned for conspiring to obtain Better Wages,  

August, 1811 242 

JANE COX Executed at Exeter Summer Assizes, 1811, for poisoning a Child with  

Arsenic 244 

JAMES DALE A Chimney-Sweep, who descended Chimneys to break into Houses,  

and was convicted on 9th September, 1811 245 

ARTHUR BAILEY Executed at Ilchester, 11th of September, 1811, for stealing a  

Letter from the Post Office at Bath 247 

WILLIAM BEAVAN A Burglar, who was identified by his Deformed Hand, and was  

executed before Newgate, 19th of September, 1811 248 

DANIEL DAVIS A Postal Letter-Carrier, convicted at the September Sessions,  

1811, at the Old Bailey, and sentenced to Death, for stealing a Letter containing Ten  

Pounds 250 

ELIZABETH KING Sentenced to Death at the Old Bailey, for privately stealing a  

Bag of Gold, 21st of September, 1811 251 

AGNES ADAMS Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, 1811, and sentenced to Six  

Months' Imprisonment for uttering a "Bank of Fleet" Note 252 

RICHARD PAYNE AND JOHN MALONEY Convicted, October Sessions, 1811, at  

the Old Bailey, and sentenced to Death, for robbing a Man whom they had accused of  

being an Ex-Convict 253 

WILLIAM ROGERS Overseer of Carpenters, employed at the Lyceum Theatre,  

transported, October Sessions, 1811, for embezzling Timber, and making False  

Charges to his Employer 254 

TUCKER, THE MOCK PARSON Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, 2nd of  

November, 1811, for swindling a Victualler of his Wine, and transported for Seven  

Years 256 

HARRIET MAGNIS Tried for child stealing, 1811 258 

JOHN WILLIAMS Who, after committing a series of horrible murders, in 1811  

escaped the gallows by hanging himself in Prison 262 

JOHN CLAYTON and WILLIAM JENKINS Executed for Burglary 271 

COLONEL BROWNE An American Loyalist, convicted in the Court of King's Bench  

at Westminster, 21st of February, 1812, of Forgery at Common Law, and Sentenced  

to Imprisonment in Newgate 273 

BENJAMIN WALSH, ESQ., M.P. Convicted in 1812 of feloniously stealing a Large  

Sum of Money from Sir Thomas Plomer, his Majesty's Solicitor-General, and  

pardoned on a Case reserved for the Opinion of the Twelve Judges 275 

GEORGE SKENE Chief Clerk of the Queen Square Police Office, Westminster.  

Executed before Newgate, 18th of March, 1812, for Forgery 279 

JOHN BELLINGHAM Executed for the Murder of the Right Honourable Spencer  

Perceval, Chancellor of the Exchequer, by shooting him in the House of Commons, in  

May, 1812 281 

BENJAMIN RENSHAW Executed, after an Abortive Attempt, at Nottingham, 29th  

of August, 1812, for setting fire to a Haystack 300 

DANIEL DAWSON Convicted at Cambridge Summer Assizes, 1812, and executed  

for Poisoning Racehorses at Newmarket 301 

JOHN DAVIES Sentenced to Six Months' Imprisonment for buying Guineas at a  

Higher Price than their Nominal Value, September, 1812 302 

CHARLES FOX "The Flying Dustman," convicted at the Middlesex Sessions,  

September, 1812, for an Assault, and sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment 303 

THOMAS LIGHT, alias JOHN JONES, alias THOMAS KNIGHT. Tried for stealing  

dead bodies from St. Giles' Churchyard 305 

EDWARD TURNER A pugilist, convicted of manslaughter for killing his opponent,  

22nd October, 1812 307 

LIEUTENANT GAMAGE Late of the Griffon Sloop-of-War, hanged at the Yardarm  

of that Ship, in November, 1812, for the Murder of a Sergeant of Marines 309 

JOHN WALKER Another Tyrannical Guardian of the Peace of the Night, whose  

Case offers another Peep into a London Watch-House, imprisoned for assaulting a  

Woman, November, 1812 311 

THE MARQUIS OF SLIGO Convicted of enticing British Seamen to desert, fined  

Five Thousand Pounds, and imprisoned Four Months in Newgate, 16th of December,  

1812 312 

JOACHIM, a Portuguese; MARTIN, a black; MILLINGTON, an Irishman; and  

WILLIAMS, an Englishman Tried and executed for mutiny and murder of their  

officers, while making an English port, in a French prize brig, December, 1812 316 

JOHN AND LEIGH HUNT Imprisoned for a Libel on His Royal Highness the Prince  

Regent 318 

HENRY MORRIS Transported for Bigamy 321 

WILLIAM CORNWELL A Murderer, who was traced by a Watch he had sold, and  

was executed in 1813 323 

PHILIP NICHOLSON Executed on Pennenden Heath, August 23, 1813, for the  

Murder of Mr and Mrs Bonar 325 

W. H. HOLLINGS Executed for the Murder of Elizabeth Pitcher 341 

THOMAS SHARPE Executed October 31, 1814, for the horrid murder in Kentish  

Town 344 

ELIZA FENNING A Cook, who was convicted of placing Arsenic in Dumplings, and  

executed, 26th of June, 1815, after Solemn Protestations of Innocence 348 

THOMAS BROCK, JOHN PELHAM, and MICHAEL POWER Convicted of  

Coining, 25th of September, 1816 352 

CASHMAN, HOOPER, GAMBLE, GUNNELL, CARPENTER, HUNT, AND  

WATSON The Spafields rioters, 1817 354 

GEORGE BARNETT Charged with shooting at Miss Frances Maria Kelly, Actress,  

in Drury Lane Theatre, 17th of February, 1816 365 

THE ASHCROFTS AND WILIAM HOLDEN Tried at the Lancaster Assizes for the  

Murder of Margaret Marsden and Hannah Partington, 5th September, 1817 367 

WILLIAM HAITCH Who Murdered Mary Minting, destroyed himself, and was  

buried at a cross-road 381 

MICHAEL SHIPMAN Tried and convicted for administering drugs to a young lady,  

for an infamous purpose, 1818 387 

ABRAHAM THORNTON Acquitted on a Charge of murdering a Girl, and on being  

rearrested claimed Trial by Battle, April, 1818 391

RENWICK WILLIAMS  

Commonly called "The Monster." Convicted 13th Of December, 1790, of a  

brutal and wanton Assault on Miss Ann Porter

SEVERAL months previous to the apprehension of this man, a report ran  

through all ranks of society, that young females, had been secretly wounded in  

different parts of their bodies, in the public streets, and often in the daytime, by a  

monster, who, upon committing the brutal crime, effected his escape. 

At length a man named Renwick Williams was apprehended on the charge of  

one of the young ladies thus brutally wounded, and his trial came on at the Old  

Bailey, on the 18th of January, 1790. 

The indictment charged, that with force and arms, in the parish of St. James's  

on the king's highway, Renwick Williams did, unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously,  

make an assault upon, maim, and wound, Ann Porter, against the peace, &c. A second  

count charged the said Renwick Williams, that on the same day and year, he did,  

unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously, tear, spoil, cut, and deface, the garments and  

clothes, to wit, the cloak, gown, petticoat, and shift, of the said Ann Porter, contrary to  

the statute, and against the peace, &c. 

Miss Ann Porter deposed, that she had been at St. James's, to see the ball, on  

the night of the 18th of January, 1790, accompanied by her sister, Miss Sarah Porter,  

and another lady; that her father had appointed to meet them at twelve o'clock, the  

hour the ball generally breaks up; but that it ended at eleven; and she was therefore  

under the necessity either of staying where she was, until her father came, or to return  

home at that time. Her father, she said, lived in St. James's Street, and that he kept a  

tavern and a cold-bath. She agreed to go home with her party. 

As they proceeded up St. James's Street, her sister appeared much agitated,  

and called to her to hasten home, which she and her company accordingly did. Her  

sister was the first to reach the hall-door. As the witness turned the corner of the rails,  

she received a blow on the right hip; she turned round, and saw the prisoner stoop  

down: she had seen him before several times, on each of which he had followed close  

behind her, and used language so gross, that the court did not press on her to relate the  

particulars. 

He did not immediately run away when he struck her, but looked on her face,  

and she thus had a perfect opportunity of observing him. She had no doubt, she said,  

of the prisoner being the man that wounded her. She supposed that the wound was  

inflicted with a sharp instrument, because her clothes were cut, and she was wounded  

through them. 

Miss Porter further deposed, that on the thirteenth of June last, she was  

walking in St. James's Park, with her mother and her two sisters, and a gentleman of  

the name of Coleman. The prisoner at the bar met and passed her; she was struck with  

his person, and knew him; she found he had turned to look after her. Upon appearing  

agitated, she was questioned, and pointed him out to Mr Coleman. She said she knew  

him, when he was brought up to the public-office, at Bow Street. 

Her gown of pink silk, and her shift, which she wore the night she was  

wounded, were produced in court, and were cut on the right side a considerable  

length. 

Miss Sarah Porter was next called. She swore, that she had seen the prisoner at  

the bar, prior to the 18th of June last, but had no acquaintance with him. He had  

followed her, and talked to her in language the most shocking and obscene. She had  

seen him four of five different times. On that night, when her sister was cut, she saw  

him standing near the bottom of St. James's Street, and spying her, he exclaimed, 'O,  

ho! are you there?' and immediately struck her a violent blow on the side of the head.  

She then, as well as she was able, being almost stunned called to her sister, to make  

haste, adding, 'Don't you see the wretch behind us?' Upon coming to their own door,  

the prisoner rushed between them, and about the time he struck her sister, he also rent  

the witness's gown. There were lights in the street, and she knew him. 

Two more sisters, Miss Rebecca Porter and Miss Martha Porter, also bore  

unequivocal testimony, as to the identity of the prisoner, with respect to his having  

accosted them in company with their sisters, with the most obscene and indecent  

language. 

Mr. John Coleman was the next witness called. He swore that he was walking  

with Miss Ann Porter, and the rest of her family, in St. James's Park, on the evening  

of Sunday, the thirteenth of June, 1789. That, upon observing Miss Porter much  

agitated, and enquiring the cause, she pointed out the prisoner at the bar, and said, 'the  

wretch had just passed her.' Having pointed him out, the witness followed him to the  

house of Mr. Smith, in South Moulton Street, and upon going into the parlour where  

he was, expressed his surprise on the prisoner's not resenting the insults he (the  

witness) had offered him; and demanded his address. Mr. Smith and the prisoner both  

expressed their surprise at such a demand, without a reason given; he therefore said,  

that he, the prisoner, had insulted some ladies, who had pointed him out, and that he  

must have satisfaction. The prisoner denied having offered any insult; but, upon his  

persisting, they exchanged addresses. 

The prisoner's address was produced by the witness, No. 52, Jermyn Street.  

The witness and the prisoner then mutually recognised each other, as having been in  

company with each other before, and the witness then departed. On his departure, he  

repented having quitted him, and turning back, he met with him at the top of St.  

James's Street; he then accosted him again, saying, 'I don't think you are the person I  

took you for; you had better come with me now; and let the ladies see you.' The  

prisoner objected, as it was late at night; but upon his saying it was close by, be went  

with him. 

On his being introduced into the parlour, where the Miss Porters were sitting,  

two of them, Ann and Sarah, fainted away, exclaiming, 'Oh! my God! that's the  

wretch!' The prisoner then said, 'The ladies' behaviour is odd. They don't take me for  

the monster that is advertised?' The witness said, they did. 

The prisoner was there an hour before he was taken away, and in that time said  

nothing particular. 

Mr. Tomkins, surgeon, was next called. By his description the wound must  

have been made by a very sharp instrument. He had also examined the clothes, and  

they must have been cut at the same time. The wound itself was, at the beginning, for  

two or three inches, but skin-deep; about the middle of it, three or four inches deep,  

and gradually decreasing in depth towards the end. The length of the wound, from the  

hip downwards, was nine or ten inches. 

The prisoner being called upon for his defence, begged the indulgence of the  

court, in supplying the deficiency of his memory, upon what he wished to state, from  

a written paper. He accordingly read as follows: 

'He stood,' he said, 'an object equally demanding the attendon and compassion  

of the court. That, conscious of his innocence, he was ready to admit the justice of  

whatever sufferings he had hitherto undergone, arising from suspicion. He had the  

greatest confidence in the justice and liberality of an English jury, and hoped they  

would not suffer his fate to be decided by the popular prejudice raised against him.  

The hope of proving his innocence had hitherto sustained him. 

'He professed himself the warm friend and admirer of that sex whose cause  

was now asserted; and concluded with solemnly declaring, that the whole prosecution  

was founded on a dreadful mistake, which, he had no doubt, but that the evidence he  

was about to call, would clear up, to the satisfaction of the court.' 

His counsel then proceeded to call his witnesses. 

Mr Mitchell, the first evidence, is an artificial flower maker, living in Dover  

Street, Piccadilly. The prisoner had worked for him nine months in all; he had worked  

with him on the eighteenth of January, the Queen's birthday, the day on which Miss  

Porter had been wounded, from nine o'clock in the morning, till one o'clock in the  

day, and from half past two till twelve at night. He bad then supped with the family.  

He gave the prisoner a good character, as behaving with good nature to the women in  

the house. 

Miss Mitchell, the former witness's sister, told the same story. 

Two other witnesses, domestics in the same house, likewise appeared on  

behalf of the prisoner; but the whole of the evidence, on his part, proved rather  

contradictory. 

Mr. Justice Buller, with great accuracy and ability, went through the whole of  

this extraordinary business, stating with great clearness and perspicuity, the parts of  

the evidence that were most material for the consideration of the jury, with many  

excellent observations. 

He said, it had been stated in various ways, that great outrages had been  

committed by the prisoner at the bar, and therefore, in his defence, he had very  

properly, not only applied to the compassion of the jury, to guard against the effects of  

prejudice, but also to their judgment. It was very proper to do so, and in this he only  

demanded justice; prejudice often injured, though it could never serve, the cause of  

justice. 

In this the jury would have only to consider, what were the facts of which they  

were to be satisfied, and on which it was their province to decide. This being done by  

them, and if they should find the prisoner guilty, upon the present charge, he would  

reserve his case for the opinion of the twelve judges of England, and this be should do  

for several reasons; first, because this was completely and perfectly a new case in  

itself; and, secondly, because this was the first indictment of this kind that was ever  

tried. Therefore, although he himself entertained but little doubt upon the first point,  

yet, as the case was new, it would be right to have a solemn decision upon it. So that  

hereafter the law, in that particular, may be declared from undoubted authority. 

Upon the second point, he owned, that he entertained some doubts. This  

indictment was certainly the first of the kind that was ever drawn in this kingdom. It  

was founded upon the statute of the 6th Geo. I. Upon this statute it must be proved,  

that it was the intent of the party accused, not only to wound the body, but also cut,  

tear, and spoil the garment; here the learned judge read the clause of the act: one part  

of this charge was quite clear, namely, that Miss Porter was wounded, and her clothes  

torn. The first question, therefore, for the consideration of the jury would be, whether  

this was done wilfully, and with intent to spoil the garment, as well as to wound the  

body. That was a fact for the jury to decide, and if they agreed upon this, then,  

whether the prisoner was the man who did it. 

He observed, that there might be cases in which the clothes were torn, and yet  

where this act would not apply; such, for instance, as a scuffle in a quarrels where  

clothes might be torn wilfully, but not with that malice and previous intent which this  

act required. It should be observed, that here there was a wound given, with an  

instrument that was not calculated solely for the purpose of affecting the body, such,  

for instance, as piercing or stabbing, by making a hole, but here was an actual cutting,  

and the wound was of a very considerable length, and so was the rent in the clothes. It  

was for the jury to decide, whether, as both body and clothes were cut, he who  

intended the end, did not also intend the means. He left it to the jury to say, upon the  

whole of the case, whether the prisoner was guilty or innocent. 

The jury intmediately, without hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. 

Mr. Justice Buller then ordered the judgment in this case to be arrested, and  

the recognizances of the persons bound to prosecute, to be respited until the  

December sessions. 

The court was crowded with spectators by nine, when this trial began, which  

ended at five o'clock at night. 

All the witnesses were examined separately. 

At the commencement of the sessions at the Old Bailey, on the 10th  

December, Judge Ashurst addressed the prisoner nearly in the following terms: 'You  

have been capitally convicted under the stat. 6 Geo. I. of maliciously tearing, cutting,  

spoiling, and defacing, the garments of Ann Porter, on the 18th January last. Judgment  

has been arrested upon two points: one, that the indictment is informal; the other that  

the act of Parliament does not reach the crime, Upon solemn consideration, the judges  

are of opinion, that both the objections are well founded: but although you are  

discharged from this indictment, yet you are within the purview of the common law.  

You are therefore to be remanded to be tried for a misdemeanor.' 

He was accordingly, on the 13th of the same month, tried at Hick's-hall, for a  

misdemeanor, in making an assault on Miss Ann Porter. 

The trial lasted sixteen hours: there were three counts in the indictment, viz,  

for assaulting with intent to kill, for assaulting and wounding, and for a common  

assault. 

The charge was that he, on the 18th January, 1790, made an assault on Ann  

Porter, and with a certain knife inflicted on her person a wound nine inches long, and  

in the middle part of it four inches deep. The same witnesses were then called in  

support of the charge, as appeared on the trial at the Old Bailey; they gave a very  

clear, correct, and circumstantial evidence, positively swearing to the person of the  

prisoner. The facts proved were nearly the same, with very little variation indeed with  

those which were given in evidence on his trial for the felony at the Old Bailey; for  

which reason we forbear to enter more fully on this trial. The prisoner produced two  

witnesses, Miss Amet and Mr. Mitchell, who attempted to prove a clear alibi, and the  

credit of their testimony was not impeached by any contradiction. 

The question therefore was, to which the jury would give credit; for the  

evidence on both sides was equally fair and unexceptionable. 

The prisoner was again put to the bar at ten o'clock the next morning, and tried  

on the remaining indictments, on three of which he was found guilty; when the oourt  

sentenced him to two years' imprisonment in Newgate for each, and at the expiration  

of the time to find security for his good behaviour, himself in 200L. and two sureties  

in 100L. each. 

This singular case excited universal attention; but many were by no means  

convinced of his guilt, believing that the witnesses, a circumstance which we have  

shewn too frequently to have happened, mistook the person of the prisoner. The  

particulars we have given of this brutal attack on the defenceless, by a monster of the  

stronger sex, with our full report of the trial, will sufficiently prepare our readers to  

judge for themselves on the case of Renwick Williams, divested of the popular  

prejudice then strong against him.

JOHN BELVILLE  

Convicted at the Old Bailey, 16th of February, 1791, for a Robbery from  

"the Dwelling-House of her Majesty, called Buckingham House"

THE indictment against this singularly daring thief charged him with  

feloniously stealing a pair of silver snuffers, one silver snuffer-stand and two silver  

vessels from the dwelling-house of her Majesty, called Buckingham House, the  

property of his Majesty. 

The wretched man did not deny the theft, but pleaded excessive poverty. He  

said he was a gentleman by birth, and was brought over to England by a Russian  

gentleman, with whom he had lived, as his valet, four years. On his master's return to  

Russia he was recommended by him to an English family, and afterwards served other  

gentlemen of property; he, at length was engaged to serve Miss Burney, one of the  

maids-of-honour to the Queen, as her footman. He had not lived long in her service  

before he discovered that some secret enemy was working his ruin, and he was soon  

discharged, and could no longer obtain a character. 

On the morning he committed the robbery he had wandered about St James's  

Park without a farthing in his pocket, extremely hungry, and without the prospect of  

any relief; and with a view to moving the compassion of Miss Burney he had called at  

Buckingham House, where he had found means to take the property, for which he  

expressed the deepest sorrow, and entreated the jury to be merciful. 

This candid defence and humble petition had its weight with the jury, who  

found him guilty of "stealing to the value of thirty-nine shillings only," which did not  

affect his life.

WILLIAM GADESBY  

Executed for Robbery

A robbery committed by means of bird-lime

IN recording the execution of this culprit, a Scotch newspaper says "he was  

one of the most notorious villains that has figured in the line of roguery in this country  

for many years; and, though only twenty-eight years of age, his criminal exploits  

appear, both in variety and number, to equal, if not exceed, the achievements of the  

most dexterous and greyheaded offender." 

As this fellow lived, so he determined to die-with notoriety. 

He was brought to the gallows at Edinburgh, February the 20th, 1791, dressed  

in a suit of white cloth, trimmed with black. The awful ceremony, the dreadful  

apparatus of death, the surrounding multitude of spectators, appeared not to shake his  

frame, nor to agitate his mind. He mounted the platform of death with a firm step, and  

stood with great composure till the apparatus was adjusted; and then, in a collected  

manner, and in an audible voice, gave a brief account of his life. 

He said that the first robbery he committed was in a stationer's shop, where he  

purloined a pocket-book. The success of this childish theft encouraged him to commit  

others: and in a short time he gave himself wholly up to thieving, never letting an  

opportunity slip of possessing himself of money or goods, by fraud or force, until the  

day he was committed to gaol. He said that he often escaped in hackney-chairs, and  

advised the officer on guard at the Castle to search all such vehicles. 

He declared most solemnly that three miserable men, who had been executed  

two years ago at the place where he then stood, of the names of Falconer, Bruce, and  

Dick, were innocent, for that he himself had committed the robberies for which they  

were condemned! 

With exultation he continued-that the sums he had acquired by thieving and  

cheating did not amount to less than two thousand pounds, besides the fortune of the  

unhappy woman, whom he seduced and ruined. It was high time to stop the monster's  

speech, and the platform was therefore dropped, while yet he was exulting in his sins! 

"Scotland," says the paper from which we extract this unparalleled case,  

"seems to be in an improved state: the following ingenious contrivance was lately  

practised at Glasgow:-While a merchant in King Street was counting some money  

and bank-notes on a counter, a staff or small rod, overlaid with bird-lime, was  

suddenly thrust in at the door, which having touched the notes, two of them were  

thereby carried off; and, before the merchant could pursue, the ingenious actor had  

made his escape."

BARTHOLOMEW QUAILN  

Executed, after a great Legal Argument, on 7th of March, 1791, in the Isle  

of Ely, for the Murder of his Wife.

IN the case of this unfortunate man the judges were called upon to decide  

whether he had murdered his wife by kicking her, or whether her death was  

occasioned only after "reasonable chastisement," which he had inflicted upon her. 

Bartholomew Quailn, a poor labouring man, was tried at the assizes for the  

Isle of Ely for the wilful murder of his wife; but on the Court doubting whether the  

affair was murder or manslaughter the jury found a special verdict, which, being  

removed certiorari, was now argued, in the presence of the prisoner, by Mr Plumtree  

for the Crown, and Mr Wilson for the unhappy man at the bar. 

The facts were principally these. The prisoner, with his infant child on one  

arm, and a coarse bag on the other, followed his wife out of a public-house in the  

parish of Hadgrane, in the county of Cambridge. Soon afterwards his wife was seen  

lying on the road, quarrelling with her husband, who stood near her, because he would  

not give her the bag which he held in his left hand. High words passed between them;  

and, upon some provoking expressions being made use of by the wife, the prisoner  

ran up to her and kicked her violently as she lay on the ground. She got up and  

endeavoured to run away from him, but he ran after her, and on his overtaking her she  

again fell to the ground, when he again kicked her with great violence. She rose again,  

and endeavoured to make her escape, but he again followed her, and on her falling  

down he kicked her violently as before. 

While she lay on the ground a person called to him and asked him how he  

could treat his wife so barbarously. To which he replied that he would serve her in the  

same manner. The deceased rose again from the ground, and endeavoured to get from  

him, but he followed her, threw her down, and gave her several violent kicks, upon  

which she clapped her hand to her side and exclaimed, "Oh, Bat, now you have done  

for me!" or "Now you have killed me," or some words to that effect; and soon after  

she expired. 

The prisoner showed great grief and concern for her death. The jurors found  

that she had not given him any other provocation; that her spleen had been burst by  

the kicks she so received; and that the said bursting of the spleen had been the cause  

of her death. 

Mr Plumtree, after an elegant exordium, entered into the definition of murder  

as laid down by Hawkins and Hale; described the two kinds of malice in fact and in  

law, or, as they are more generally called, malice express and malice implied; and  

contended that, from the circumstances of this case, the Court must imply that the  

prisoner was impelled by that malice which, according to the words of Mr Justice  

Forster, showed "his heart to be regardless of social duty, and his mind deliberately  

bent upon mischief." 

Mr Wilson, for the prisoner, raised two objections in point of form, which,  

however, were overruled by the Court. 

The judges gave their opinions seriatim, and were clear and unanimous that  

the facts as stated on the special verdict amounted to the crime of murder. They relied  

upon the doctrine laid down by Mr Justice Forster that "in every charge of murder, the  

fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity or  

infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the  

evidence produced against him; for the law presumes the fact to be founded on malice  

until the contrary appears"; that upon the present occasion there was no one fact of  

provocation stated on the verdict that could induce the prisoner to kick his wife in so  

violent a manner, for, so far from her making any resistance, it appeared she  

endeavoured all she could to get away from him. Chastisement, wherever that right  

exists, must be done in a reasonable manner; but where it is exercised in so violent a  

manner as in the present case it shows the heart to be regardless of social duty, and  

deliberately bent on mischief. 

This case was like the case of the park-keeper who tied a boy to a horse's tail  

and then struck the boy, which occasioned the horse to run away, by which the boy  

was killed. Death, perhaps, was not intended in either case, but the mode of correction  

in both was violent; or, as the printed report of the case called it, it was a deliberate  

act; from which, as death ensued, it was adjudged to be murder. 

There was also a case in Kelynge, pages 64 and 65, where a woman was  

indicted for murdering her child; and it appeared that she had kicked her on the belly,  

and it was adjudged murder. 

The Clerk of the Crown called upon the prisoner and, after reading the  

proceedings, asked him what he had to say why the Court should not pronounce on  

him judgment to die according to law. 

Mr Justice Ashurst, putting on the black coif which is worn on these  

occasions, pronounced sentence of death in the most solemn and affecting manner- 

viz. that the prisoner should be hanged by the neck, and his body delivered to the  

surgeons to be dissected and anatomised. 

He was executed on the 7th of March, 1791.

JOSEPH WOOD AND THOMAS UNDERWOOD  

Two Fourteen-year-old Boys, executed at Newgate, 6th of July, 1791, for  

robbing another Boy

ALL the parties in this case were mere children, the malefactors being but  

fourteen years of age each, and the prosecutor no more than twelve! 

Though of this tender age, yet were the two prisoners convicted as old and  

daring depredators. So often had they already been arraigned at that bar where they  

were condemned that the judge declared, notwithstanding their appearance (they were  

short, dirty, ill-visaged boys), it was necessary, for the public safety, to cut them off,  

in order that other boys might learn that, inured to wickedness, their tender age would  

not save them from an ignominious fate. 

The crime for which they suffered was committed with every circumstance of  

barbarity. They forcibly took away a bundle, containing a jacket, shirt and waistcoat,  

from a little boy, then fell upon him, and would probably have murdered him had they  

not been secured. They had long belonged to a most desperate gang of pickpockets  

and footpads; but they were so hardened and obstinate that they would not impeach  

their companions, though the hopes of mercy were held out to them if they would  

make a con- fession, so that the villains might have been apprehended. 

They were executed at Newgate, the 6th of July, 1791, apparently insensible of  

their dreadful situation.

NATHANIEL LILLEY, JAMES MARTIN, MARY  

BRIANT, WILLIAM ALLEN, AND JOHN BUTCHER  

Convicted of Returning from Transportation

THESE convicts effected their escape from Botany Bay under the following  

extraordinary circumstances:-- A Dutch schooner, commanded by Captain Smyth,  

took a supply of provisions to the settlement of Sydney Cove. A convict, named  

Briant, and who was married to the prisoner Mary Briant, persuaded Captain Smyth to  

let him have his six-oared boat, with an old lug-sail, a quadrant, and compass, for  

which he paid him what money he had, and some he collected among those to whom  

he intrusted his design; for the convicts having little use for the money with which  

their friends had supplied them, on sailing from this country, had most of it by them.  

Captain Smyth gave him one hundred pounds of rice, and fourteen pounds of pork;  

they purchased of a convict, who was baker to the colony, one hundred pounds of  

flour, at the rate of two shillings and sixpence, and one shilling and sixpence per  

pound, which, with ten gallons of water, was all the provisions they took on board;  

and, at ten at night, on the 28th of March, 1791, William Briant, with his wife and two  

children, the one three years and the other one year old, the three other prisoners,  

Samuel Briant, James Cox, and William Martin, embarked in this open boat to sail to  

the island of Timor, which, by the nearest run, is upward of one thousand three  

hundred miles from the place of their embarkation; but, by the course they were  

forced to take, it was impossible for them to form an idea what distance they might  

have to run, or what dangers, independent of those of the sea, they might have to  

encounter; added to this, the monsoon had just set in, and the wind was contrary. 

Under these circumstances they rather choose to risk their lives on the sea,  

than drag out a miserable existence on an inhospitable shore. They were forced to  

keep along the coast, as much as they could, for the convenience of procuring supplies  

of fresh water; and on these occasions, and when the weather was extremely  

tempestuous, they would sometimes sleep on shore, hauling their boat on the land.  

The savage natives, wherever they put on shore, came down, in numbers, to murder  

them. They now found two old muskets, and a small quantity of powder, which  

Captain Smyth had given them, particularly serviceable, by firing over the heads of  

these multitudes, on which they ran off with great precipitation; but, they were always  

forced to keep a strict watch. In lat. 26 degrees 27 minutes they discovered a small  

uninhabited island: here was plenty of turtles, that proved a great relief to them; but  

they were very near being lost in landing. On this island they dried as much turtle as  

they could carry, which lasted them ten days. 

During the first five weeks of their voyage they had continual rains; and being  

obliged to throw overboard their wearing apparel, &c. were for that time continually  

wet. They were once eight days out of sight of land, and after surmounting infinite  

hardships and dangers, they landed, on the 5th of June, 1791, at Cupang, on the island  

of Timor, where the Dutch have a settlement; having sailed considerably more than  

five thousand miles, and been ten weeks all but one day in performing this voyage. At  

Cupang they informed the governor, that they had belonged to an English ship, which  

was wrecked on her passage to New South Wales. The governor treated them with  

great humanity, but at length overheard a conversation among them, by which he  

discovered that they were convicts, who had escaped from the colony in New South  

Wales. 

On the 29th of August, 1791, the Pandora, of twenty guns, Captain Edwards,  

was wrecked on a reef of rocks near New South Wales. The captain, and those of the  

crew who were saved, got to Cupang in their boats, when the governor gave the  

captain an account of the eleven persons he had there, and of the conversations he had  

overheard. 

The captain took them with him to Batavia, where William Briant and his  

eldest child died. The rest were put on board a Dutch ship, in which Captain Edwards  

sailed with them, for the Cape of Good Hope. On their passage to the Cape, James  

Cox fell overboard and was drowned, and Samuel Bird and William Martin died. At  

the Cape, Captain Edwards delivered the survivors to Captain Parker, of the Gorgon,  

and they sailed with him for England. In their passage home, the younger child of  

Mary Briant died. 

Their trial took place, at the Old Bailey, on the 8th of July, 1792, when the  

Court ordered then to remain on their former sentence, until they should be discharged  

by the course of law. This lenient treatment was in consequence of the great suffering  

they had endured, the full punishment for such an offence being death. Joseph  

Lorrison

JOSEPH LORRISON  

Known among Thieves as "Jumping Joe." Executed on Kennington  

Common, 8th of August, 1792, for Robbery on the Highway

JOSEPH LORRISON was an old offender. He was particularly dexterous in  

robbing wagons, which, while the driver was guiding his team, he would quickly  

jump into and hand out whatever packages he could lay his hands on, and give them  

to his confederates, who were always in readiness to receive them. 

He was tried for different species of robbery, and finally for assaulting and  

robbing Mr James Dixon, on the highway, of his watch and money. When  

apprehended he was dressed in a smock-frock, and the prosecutor could not then  

swear to him; but when he put on a coat which was found in his room he then swore  

positively that he was the man who robbed him. He was found guilty at the Old  

Bailey, and sentenced to death. 

Before and after conviction, however, he in the most solemn manner denied  

his guilt. 

He was born in the county of Surrey, and resided for several years in the  

borough of Southwark, where he was long known as a most daring and atrocious  

depredator on the public. He was once tried for the murder of a watchman, and though  

acquitted, from the evidence not being sufficient, was in general supposed to be  

guilty. He obtained the appellation of "Jumping Joe" from his dexterity in jumping  

into carts, wagons, etc., in order to rob them. He was executed on Kennington  

Common, on the 8th of August, 1792.

THE REV. RICHARD BURGH, JOHN CUMMINGS, ESQ.,  

CAPTAIN IN THE ARMY, TOWNLEY M'CAN, ESQ.,  

STUDENT OF LAW, JAMES DAVIS AND JOHN BOURNE  

Convicted of a Conspiracy to set fire to the King's Bench Prison, February,  

1793

ON the trial of these conspirators the Attorney-General said he flattered  

himself it would be found that he had done no more than his duty in bringing the  

several defendants before the Court. The offence with which they were charged was  

of the utmost importance to the peace and safety of the capital, for it not only had for  

its object the demolition of the King's Bench Prison, but involved the burning of other  

houses, bloodshed and murder. 

He lamented that five persons, all of education and respectable families,  

should, by their folly and imprudence, to call it by the softest name, bring themselves  

into such an unfortunate situation. One was a reverend divine, another an officer in  

the army, another had been in the profession of the law, and the others were of  

respectable parents, and with fair prospects of being honourable and useful members  

of the community. 

The Attorney-General further said that this case was pregnant with the most  

alarming circumstances, which would be better detailed by the witnesses than  

described by him. 

The prisoner Burgh was private chaplain to the Duke of Leinster, and a  

relation to a Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. 

The first witness was Mr Justice Buller's clerk, who produced a record to  

prove that the prisoner Burgh was lawfully confined in the King's Bench Prison for  

debt. 

Evidence was produced to prove that the other prisoners were also confined in  

the same prison for debt. 

Edward Webb said he knew all the prisoners. About the beginning of May he  

was introduced into a society called "The Convivials" held in a room in the King's  

Bench Prison, of which the prisoners were members. 

M'Can expressed himself very freely upon the subject of Lord Rawdon's Bill,  

then pending, respecting insolvent debtors, and said if that Bill did not pass into a law  

he and others were determined to do something to liberate themselves; that there was  

a scheme in agitation for that purpose, but that the parties were sworn to secrecy, and  

therefore he could not divulge it. The witness said he might safely communicate the  

business to him. The prisoners Cummings and Davis were present at the time. 

M'Can afterwards opened the business to the witness. He said the plan in  

which he and the other prisoners were concerned was to effect their own enlargement  

by demolishing the walls of the prison, as they were determined not to be confined  

within those walls for debt. The execution of this plan would, however, depend upon  

the rejection of Lord Rawdon's Bill. After they had effected their escape, by setting  

fire to the prison, they would then go to the Fleet Prison and liberate the prisoners;  

after which they would proceed to the houses of Lords Thurlow and Kenyon, which  

they would destroy. 

Davis said he would not hesitate to blow out the brains of those noble Lords.  

The witness saw the other defendants, who conversed upon the subject, and it was  

proposed to procure some sailors to assist them. This scheme was, however, defeated  

by the vigilance of the marshal, who sent for the guards, and had the prison searched  

throughout. 

Shortly afterwards the witness saw M'Can, Cummings and Davis again, who  

said that, though they were defeated in the former scheme, they were determined to  

put some other plot into execution. The next day Cummings (who was called the  

Captain) said to the witness: " I have discovered the best plan that could be conceived  

for blowing up these d--d walls. I'll show you the place." He then took the witness to  

the end of the bakehouse and pointed out to him a place where the drain had been  

opened. Then he described the force necessary to blow up the walls, and said he had  

studied the scheme upon his pillow, and that it would be necessary to have a box  

about ten inches wide and as many deep, and described the tubes that were to convey  

the fire to the box, which he said must contain about fifty pounds' weight of  

gunpowder, and requested the witness would get it made. In the evening of the same  

day the witness saw M'Can and Davis come out of the coffee-room, and, alluding to  

the plot, they said it was a glorious plan, and they would support it to the loss of their  

lives. They said no other person should be privy to it, excepting Mr Bourne, who was  

concerned in the former scheme, and who had got a large quantity of gunpowder  

ready. The witness observed to them that the neighbouring bakehouse and coffee- 

room would be in danger, and that poor Martin, who had a large family, would be  

killed. They replied that it did not matter if they or a dozen more were killed, provided  

it procured the prisoners' freedom. 

A day or two afterwards, when the witness was walking on the parade with  

Cummings, M'Can and Bourne, he asked if Mr Bourne knew of the plot; they said he  

did. Bourne said they should have the powder, and that Mrs Bourne should bring it to  

the witness's house in small quantities. M'Can then proposed that, in order to raise  

money to purchase the gunpowder, a motion should be made in the club of Convivials  

for a subscription of five shillings each, under pretence of feeing counsel to know  

whether the marshal had a right to enter his prisoners' apartments when he pleased.  

This proposal was agreed to, and the motion was accordingly made. 

After several other consultations, at which all the prisoners were present, it  

was agreed that the gunpowder should be deposited in a hole in the floor of Burgh's  

room-where it was afterwards found. 

It was also agreed that, on the day the plot was to be carried into execution,  

M'Can and Bourne were to have a sham fencing-match for a great deal of money. This  

was so as to collect together all the prisoners at the time the gunpowder was set fire  

to, and thereby afford them a chance of making their escape. 

At length the day was fixed for a Sunday, about seven o'clock in the evening,  

being a time at which a number of strangers were likely to be in the prison. 

Cummings had the sole management of this plot. Burgh said that the noise and  

confusion it would create would, he hoped, bring about a revolution in this country. 

H. T. Hendacre confirmed the substance of the evidence of the last witness, as  

did Mr Battersley. These witnesses stated, by way of addition, that Davis gave half-a- 

guinea to purchase some gunpowder; that the prisoners carried on a correspondence  

with a society in the borough of Southwark; that Mr Dundas's house was one that was  

fixed on for destruction; that the prisoners had two schemes in contemplation to effect  

their escape-the one was to tie down all the turnkeys, the other the gunpowder plot in  

question, of which Cummings had the sole conduct, he being considered the engineer. 

Lord Kenyon summed up the whole of the evidence in the most able and  

impartial manner; after which the jury found all the prisoners guilty. 

On Tuesday, 12th of February, 1793, the prisoners were brought to receive  

judgment of the Court. 

The prisoner Cummings produced a petition, in which he stated that he had  

been for several years an officer in his Majesty's service, and had then two sons in the  

army, who, in consequence of the calamitous situation of the prisoner, were deprived  

of the education and support necessary to their station and rank. He stated several  

other circumstances in mitigation of punishment. 

The prisoner Townley M'Can produced an affidavit, in which he stated that he  

was a student of law, and had formed an opinion from several writers that  

imprisonment for debt was illegal; he disclaimed any criminal intention, and  

positively denied that he or his fellow-prisoners had carried on a correspondence with  

the Revolution Society in the Borough, or ever had a design to kill the two great law  

lords-as alleged by a witness at the trial. The prisoners were severally sentenced to  

three years' imprisonment, but in different prisons.

THE REV. MR JACKSON  

Convicted of Treason, in Dublin, 23rd of April, 1793, but who died of  

Poison at the Bar of the Court, at the Moment Death would have been  

pronounced upon him

THE Rev. Mr Jackson was a native of Ireland, and a minister of the Church of  

England. Early in life he was a preacher at Tavistock Chapel, and resided for several  

years in chambers in London. 

The emoluments of his clerical occupation not affording him a sufficient  

subsistence, he applied his talents to literature, and was for a considerable time editor  

of a newspaper, in which situation he made himself very conspicuous. He took a  

decided part in the quarrel between the Duchess of Kingston and Mr Foote, and is  

blamed for having treated the latter with too much asperity. He was a sharer in the  

romantic scheme of the Royalty Theatre, and was obliged to abscond for a  

considerable time on account of the pecuniary difficulties in which it involved him. 

Afterwards he entered into a criminal conspiracy, and was tried at Dublin for  

high treason on the 23rd of April, 1795, at eleven o'clock. The indictment charged the  

prisoner with two species of treason-namely, compassing the King's death, and  

adhering to his enemies-and stated fourteen overt acts. The Attorney-General opened  

the prosecution on the part of the Crown, and called Mr Cockayne, an attorney of  

London, who deposed that he had been for a series of years the law agent and intimate  

friend of Mr Jackson, who, a few years before, went to France (as the witness  

understood) to transact some private business for Mr Pitt, where he resided a  

considerable time. Soon after his return Mr Cockayne said he called on Jackson, who  

told him in confidence that he had formed a design of going to Ireland, to sound the  

people, for the purpose of procuring a supply of provisions, etc., from them for the  

French, and requested him (the witness) to accompany him. Having accepted the  

invitation, witness immediately waited on Mr Pitt, and discovered to him the whole of  

Mr Jackson's plans. The Minister thanked him for the information, and hinted that, as  

the matter was to become a subject of legal investigation, it would be necessary for  

him to substantiate the allegations; but this Mr Cockayne wished to decline, on the  

principle that if the prisoner were convicted of high treason he should lose by it three  

hundred pounds, in which sum he then was indebted to him. This objection was soon  

removed by Mr Pitt agreeing to pay him the money, provided he would prosecute to  

conviction; and the witness accompanied Mr Jackson to Ireland for the purpose of  

making himself acquainted with his proceedings. 

Shortly after their arrival in Dublin, where they lived together, the prisoner  

expressed a wish to be introduced to Mr Hamilton Rowan, who was then confined in  

Newgate; and at length, through the interference of a friend, he obtained an interview,  

at which Mr Cockayne was present. In the course of conversation the prisoner  

delivered two papers to Mr Rowan, for the purpose of convincing him that he was a  

person in whom he might confide. From that time an intimacy took place between  

them; the witness always accompanied Mr Jackson on his visits to Mr Rowan, and  

constantly took a part in their conversation. 

They agreed, he said, that a person should be sent to France to procure a force  

to make a descent on Ireland, and Counsellor Wolfe Tone was mentioned as a fit  

person for that purpose, who at first appeared to acquiesce, but afterwards declined  

the office. Dr Reynolds was then proposed by Mr Rowan, but objected to by the  

prisoner, as he did not understand the French language. It was, however, at length  

agreed that the Doctor should take the embassy; but in a short time he also refused to  

enter into the business. On this it was agreed that Mr Jackson should write several  

letters, which were directed to a Mr Stone, of the firm of Lawrence & Co., London.  

These contained enclosures for houses at Hamburg and Amsterdam; and some of  

them, to the French agents, described the situation of Ireland at the time, invited an  

invasion, and pointed out the proper places to land. These letters being sent to the post  

office, the witness then went to the secretary and informed him of the subject of them,  

on which they were detained. The plot matured thus far; having been discovered, the  

prisoner was taken into custody. 

The jury found him guilty; but on his being brought into court to receive  

judgment it was intimated to the Court that the prisoner appeared to be in a very  

dangerous situation, in point of bodily weakness, having for some time-even from his  

first being brought into court-appeared to be uncommonly agitated. Dr Waite, who  

was in the county jury-box, went down to the dock, and, after examining the prisoner,  

reported that he was in a sinking situation, and had every appearance of immediate  

dissolution. Mr Kingsley, druggist, who said he had been bred an apothecary, also  

examined the prisoner, and reported that he was dying. On this the Court ordered that  

the prisoner should be remanded until further orders; but in a few moments the  

unfortunate man expired in the dock. The Court immediately adjourned. The coroner's  

inquest was held the next day, when Surgeons Hume and Adrian opened the body,  

and deposed he died in consequence of having taken some acrid substance, but what  

they could not tell.

LAURENCE JONES  

A Notorious Swindler, sentenced to Death in 1793, but who hanged himself  

Three Days before the Date of his Execution

LAURENCE JONES was born in London, and early in life became a swindler.  

Having a considerable sum of money left him by a relation, he took a very handsome  

house in St James's, which he elegantly furnished, and kept his carriage and servants,  

who, by the by, were accomplices to carry on the deception, which he did with great  

success for some months. 

During his abode in this place he defrauded Mr Hudson, a silversmith, of plate  

to the value of nearly three thousand pounds; Mr Kempton, a mercer, of silks and  

other goods to a large amount; and Mr Bailey, a watchmaker and jeweller, of a gold  

repeater, etc., etc., to the value of three hundred pounds. The time for payment being  

almost up, and suspicion being entertained of his pretensions to property, he thought it  

time to decamp, and he managed just in time to escape a warrant out against him. 

After this he lived privately for some time, that suspicion might die away  

before he again began his fraudulent practices, which he carried on with his usual  

success, till he failed in an affair in Hatton Garden, for which he was condemned. 

Mr Campbell was the collecting clerk to Vere, Lucadou & Co., bankers, in  

Lombard Street, and in the course of his business he called at a house (which was  

hired for the express purpose of preying upon the unwary) for the payment of a bill-a  

scheme concerted before by the villains. No sooner had he knocked at the door than it  

was opened by a person, in appearance a gentleman, who desired him to walk into the  

counting-house; when he did so, a man came behind him and covered his head and  

face over with a thick cap, so that he could see nothing. They then threw him on the  

floor and wrapped him up in green baize, in which condition they bound him hand  

and foot and carried him downstairs, when they proceeded to rob him. They took from  

him his pocket-book, with bank-notes and bills to the amount of nine hundred pounds.  

They then took measures to prevent a discovery before they should receive the money  

for the bills, etc., with which one of the gang immediately went out to turn them into  

cash, while the rest, in the meantime, handled the unfortunate young man in the  

following manner. 

They first laid him flat on his back on a board and chained him hand and foot,  

and then carried him downstairs into a back kitchen, where they chained him to the  

bars of a copper grate, threatening that if he made a noise they would blow his brains  

out. They then left him, after placing before him some bread, some ham and some  

water. In this condition he remained for about eight hours, when his cries were heard  

by a man who was at work in a house behind that in which Mr Campbell was  

confined. It was not long before he was set at liberty and restored to his friends, to  

their great joy, and the infinite satisfaction of his employers. 

Jones was apprehended by Jealous and Kennedy, officers of Bow Street, at the  

King's Arms, in Bridge Street, Westminster. 

Being committed to Newgate, he was afterwards tried, and found guilty, when  

he received sentence, and was ordered for execution on Wednesday, the 8th of  

December, 1793, in Hatton Garden, near the house where he committed the robbery;  

but on the Saturday previous thereto, about six o'clock in the morning, when the  

turnkey entered the cell to prepare him to hear the condemned sermon and receive the  

Sacrament, he found him dead. It appears that he had made several attempts on his life  

before, but was prevented, and the manner in which he at last accomplished this worst  

of all crimes was very extraordinary. He had taken the knee-strings with which his  

fetters were supported and tied them round his neck, then, tying the other end to the  

ring which his chain was fastened to, he placed his feet against the wall and strangled  

himself. The coroner's jury pronounced a verdict of felo-de-se. 

In consequence of the above verdict the body was carried out of Newgate  

extended upon a plank, on the top of an open cart, in his clothes, and fettered, and his  

face covered with a white cloth, to the brow of Holborn Hill, directly opposite to the  

end of Hatton Garden. The procession was attended by the sheriffs, city marshals and  

nearly five hundred constables.

ELIZABETH MARSH  

A Fifteen-year-old Girl, executed for the Murder of her Grandfather,  

March, 1794

AT Dorchester Assizes, March, 1794, Elizabeth Marsh, a girl only fifteen  

years of age, was convicted of the murder of her grandfather, John Nevil, at Modern,  

was condemned, and ordered to be executed forty-eight hours after. 

This girl lived with her grandfather, and, with the most deliberate malice,  

deprived the old man (who was seventy years of age) of his life, by giving him two  

dreadful blows on the head while he was asleep. This unhappy wretch was bred in  

such extreme ignorance that she declared she had been wholly unacquainted with the  

difference between good and evil, heaven and hell. She was executed according to her  

sentence.

HENRY GOODIFF  

A Boy condemned to Death for robbing a Pieman, who had swindled him on  

Hounslow Heath, of a few Halfpence, March, 1794

THE particulars of this youth's offence were simply these: he had been  

reprimanded by his parents for some boyish indiscretion, and, like many more  

headstrong sons, left his paternal roof, rambling he knew not whither, when, upon  

Hounslow Heath, he met one of those knavish pastry pedlars who cheat boys and girls  

and ignorant country clowns, in pretending to toss up for his penny pies. 

Poor Goodiff thought fortune might enable him to fill his empty stomach at an  

easy rate, and therefore staked his all-a few pence-with the pieman; but, alas! he lost  

his fortune without even touching one of the savoury bits on which Hunger had fixed  

her mark. 

Stung with disappointment he attacked the pieman, and forcibly took away  

from him the miserable pittance of which he conceived himself to have been cheated.  

This was, in the eye of the law, a highway robbery; and the vindictive gambler in  

tarts, finding the lad to be of good family, thought to extort high damages for the  

indignity and loss which he had received, but in seeking redress he went too far; for,  

applying to one of those human sharks who hover round the Old Bailey pretending to  

be attorneys-at-law, he laid the indictment for a capital offence, from which no  

interest could rescue his prisoner from a disgraceful conviction, and subject to an  

ignominious death. 

For this offence the unfortunate boy was actually convicted, at the Old Bailey,  

and sentenced to die, in March, 1794. 

On the representation of this case to the Privy Council his Majesty's pardon  

was granted, on condition the boy served him in the navy. 

The youth disdainfully refused the proffered mercy, and insisted on  

undergoing his sentence; but his afflicted parents persuaded him to the contrary, and  

he was conducted from Newgate to the tender which lay at anchor in the Thames, near  

the Tower, for the purpose of receiving impressed men.

ANNE BROADRIC  

Indicted for murdering a Man who had jilted her for another Woman, 17th  

of July, 1794

THE case of this unfortunate young woman excited universal pity at the time  

of its occurrence. 

It appeared that Mr Errington, the object of her attack, was a gentleman of  

large landed and personal property, residing at Grays, in Essex, and his name had  

become well known from the circumstance of his having been divorced from his wife  

a few years before the melancholy event which we are about to relate. About three  

years after the termination of the proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts he became  

acquainted with Miss Broadric, who was a young lady possessed of considerable  

accomplishments, of a fine figure, and personal charms. Miss Broadric before this had  

lived with a Captain Robinson, but it appears that, being addressed by Mr Errington  

with great solicitude, she consented to reside with him in the character of his wife. A  

mutual attachment sprang up in the course of their connection; but after a lapse of  

three years, during which they lived together with every appearance of domestic  

felicity, Mr Errington bestowed his affections and his hand on a lady of respectability  

in the neighbourhood, acquainting Miss Broadric that he could see her no more. On  

her quitting him he made what he conceived to be a suitable provision for her future  

wants, and she retired, apparently deeply grieved at the unfortunate change which had  

taken place in the feelings of her late protector. On the 11th of April, 1794, she wrote  

a letter to him in the following terms:-- 

DEAR ERRINGTON,  

-- That you have betrayed and abandoned the most tender and affectionate heart that  

ever warmed a human bosom cannot be denied by any person who is in the least  

acquainted with me. Wretched and miserable as I have been since you left me, there is  

still a method remaining that would suspend, for a time, the melancholy sufferings  

and distress which I labour under at this moment; and still, inhuman as thou art, I am  

half persuaded, when I tell you the power is in your hands, that you will not withhold  

it from me. What I allude to is the permission of seeing you once more, and, perhaps,  

for the last time. If you consider that the request comes from a woman you once  

flattered into a belief of her being the sole possessor of your love, you may not  

perhaps think it unreasonable. Recollect, however, Errington, ere you send a refusal,  

that the roaring of the tempest and the lightnings from heaven are not more terrible  

than the rage and vengeance of a disappointed woman. Hitherto you can only answer  

for the weakness and frailty of my nature. There is a further knowledge of my  

disposition you must have if you do not grant me the favour demanded. I wish it to  

come voluntarily from yourself, or else I will force it from you. Believe me, in that  

case, I would seek you in the farthest corner of the globe, rush into your presence,  

and, with the same rapture that nerved the arm of Charlotte Corday, when she  

assassinated the monster Marat, would I put an end to the existence of a man who is  

the author of all the agonies and care that at present oppress the heart of  

ANNE BROADRIC. 

P.S.-This comes by William (the servant you have discarded on my account),  

who has orders to wait for your answer. 

Her request being refused, she persisted, by letters, to endeavour to induce Mr  

Errington to permit her once more to see him, but finding him inexorable she wrote to  

him that if nothing could induce him to do her an act of justice he must prepare  

himself for the fatal alternative, as she was determined that he should not long survive  

his infidelity. 

To this, as well as to the rest of her letters, Mr Errington preserved a strict  

silence, and, about a month after, Miss Broadric carried out her dreadful resolution.  

On Friday morning, the 15th of May, she dressed herself elegantly, and, going to the  

Three Nuns Inn, Whitechapel, she took her place in the Southend coach, which passed  

close to Mr Errington's seat. She descended at the avenue gate and went towards the  

house, but being seen by Mr Errington, he begged Mrs Errington to retire for a few  

minutes saying that his tormentor was coming, but that he would soon get rid of her.  

The latter, however, desired him to leave the interview to her management, and  

requested her husband to go into the drawing-room while she awaited the arrival of  

Miss Broadric in the parlour. In the meantime the latter had entered the house by the  

kitchen, and, having learned from the footman that Mr Errington was at home, she  

was proceeding upstairs, attended by the gardener, when she met Mrs Errington. 

She demanded to see Mr Errington, but was told that he was not to be seen.  

Saying, "I am not to be so satisfied; I know the ways of this house too well, and will  

search for him," she rushed upstairs into the drawing-room. She there found the object  

of her inquiry and, going up to him, she suddenly drew from her pocket a small brass- 

barrelled pistol, with a new hagged flint, and presenting it to his left side, in a  

direction towards his heart, exclaimed: "Errington, I am come to perform my dreadful  

promise." Then she immediately fired. Mrs Errington, who had followed her, fainted,  

but Miss Broadric, observing that Mr Errington did not fall, said she feared she had  

not dispatched him. Mr Errington demanded to know how he had deserved such  

treatment at her hands, but she made no answer; the servants, alarmed by the report of  

the pistol, then came into the room, when she threw the pistol on the carpet, and  

exclaimed, laughing: "Here, take me; hang me; do what you like with me; I do not  

care now." 

Mr Miller, a surgeon, soon after attended, and found that the ball had  

penetrated the lowest rib, had cut three ribs asunder, and then passed round the back  

and lodged under the shoulder bone, from whence every effort was made to extract it,  

but in vain. Mr Button, a magistrate, now came, who took the examination of Mr  

Errington after his wound was dressed. He asked Miss Broadric what could have  

induced her to commit such an act of extreme violence, and her answer was that she  

was determined that neither Mr Errington nor herself should long outlive her lost  

peace of mind. Mr Errington entreated the magistrate not to detain her in custody, but  

let her depart, as he was sure he should do well; but this request Miss Broadric refused  

to accept, and the magistrate to grant. Her commitment being made out, she was  

conveyed that evening to Chelmsford Jail, where she remained tolerably composed till  

she heard of Mr Errington's death, when she burst into a flood of tears, and lamented  

bitterly that she had been its cause. The coroner's inquest sat on the body on Tuesday,  

the 19th of May, and brought in their verdict, "Wilful murder, by the hands of Anne  

Broadric." Mr Errington was in the thirty-ninth year of his age. 

Friday, the 17th of July, was fixed for the trial of the prisoner, and at six  

o'clock in the morning the prisoner was conveyed from the jail, in a chaise, to a room  

in the shire hall; and about ten minutes before Lord Chief Baron Macdonald, the  

sheriffs and magistrates appeared on the bench she was conveyed into the bail dock in  

the Criminal Court, attended by three ladies and her apothecary. She was dressed in  

mourning, without powder; and after the first perturbations were over, occasioned by  

the concourse of surrounding spectators, she sat down on a chair prepared for her, and  

was tolerably composed, except at intervals, when she discovered violent agitations,  

as her mind became affected by various objects and circumstances. While the  

indictment was being read she paid marked attention to it and on the words, that on  

the right breast of the said G. Errington she did wilfully and feloniously inflict one  

mortal wound, etc., she exclaimed, "Oh, my great God!" and burst into a torrent of  

tears. 

The facts above stated having been proved in evidence, the prisoner's counsel  

proceeded to call witnesses in support of her defence, who all joined in stating that  

they had known her repeatedly to exhibit symptoms of insanity. 

This defence was not traversed by the counsel on the other side, and the jury,  

after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict of not guilty. 

The judges, on leaving the town, after the assizes were over, directed that Miss  

Broadric should be examined before two magistrates, that she might be safely  

removed, under their order, to the place of her settlement; with a particular  

recommendation annexed thereto that she might be taken all possible care of.

LEWIS JEREMIAH AVERSHAW  

Executed on Kennington Common, 3rd of August, 1795, for shooting a  

Peace Officer in the act of apprehending him

Avershaw on his way to execution

THE subject of this brief memoir was one of the most fierce, depraved, and  

infamous of the human race. From early life he exhibited in his disposition a  

combination of the worst feelings of our nature, which, as the period of manhood  

approached, settled into a sort of prerogative of plunder and depredation, by which he  

seemed to consider himself as entitled to prey on the property, and sport with the  

lives, of his fellow creatures, with the most heartless impunity. 

He attached himself to gangs of the most notorious thieves and impostors, over  

whom, by a kind of supererogatory talent for all sorts of villainy, he very soon  

acquired unlimited influence and command, and by whose aid he committed such  

numerous and daring acts of highway-robbery, house-breaking, and plunder, as made  

him the dread and terror of the metropolis and its vicinity. 

Kennington Common, Hounslow Heath, Bagshot Heath, and indeed all the  

commons and roads for several miles round London, were the scenes of the predatory  

depredations of Avershaw and his associates; and such a degree of tenor had his  

repeated acts of robbery and brutality inspired, that the post-boys, coachmen, and all  

whose duty compelled them frequently to travel over the theatre of his exploits,  

trembled at his name and dreaded his visitation. 

Although the peculiar features of the criminal laws of our country for a long  

time operated to the impunity of this abandoned ruffian and desperado, the cup of his  

iniquities was gradually filling, and he at length fell under the weighty hand of  

outraged justice; but not till, unhappily, he had added a new act of murder to the long  

and black catalogue of his unatoned crimes: and it is lamentable to record that so base,  

so villainous, and so bloody a being, should have found creatures, bearing the form  

and name of men, so entirely forgetful of their duties to society and to God, as not  

only to become the admirers and apologists of what they misnamed the valour of  

Avershaw, but who absolutely affected to trace something prophetic in the fiendlike  

declarations he had too often made, that "he would murder the first who attempted to  

deliver him into the hands of justice," because, in the spirit of his diabolical  

declarations, he did actually shed the blood of a fellow-creature, who, in the  

performance of his duty as a police-officer, essayed the arrest of this most notorious  

of culprits. 

At length he was brought to trial before Mr Baron Perryn, at Croydon, in the  

county of Surrey, on the 30th of July, 1795. On his way to Croydon to take his trial,  

the cavalcade passed over Kennington Common, and on its arriving on the spot where  

the executions at that time took place, Avershaw put his head out of the coach  

window, and in the peculiar flash style which be ever exhibited, asked the officers  

attending whether they "did not think that he should be TWISTED on that pretty spot  

by the next Saturday?" 

He was charged on two indictments: one for having, at the Three Brewers  

public-house, Southwark, feloniously shot at and murdered D. Price, an officer  

belonging to the police office held at Union Hall, in the Borough; the other for having,  

at the same time and place, fired a pistol at Bernard Turner, another officer attached to  

the office at Union Hall, with an intent to murder him. 

Mr Garrow, the leading counsel for the prosecution, opened his case to the  

Court and jury by stating that the prisoner at the bar, being a person of ill fame, had  

been suspected of having perpetrated a number of felonies. A warrant had been issued  

for his arrest by the Southwark magistrates, and D. Price, and B. Turner, officers  

belonging to Union Hall, were intrusted with its execution. Having received  

information that he was smoking and drinking in a public house in Southwark called  

the Three Brewers, at that time notorious as the resort of thieves and vagabonds, they  

repaired thither, and found their information to be correct; but they also found that the  

object of their search was fully prepared to put in execution his diabolical threats. On  

their approach he placed himself at the entrance to the parlour with a loaded pistol in  

each hand, vowing the instant death of any one who should attempt to take him. The  

officers, more valiant than prudent, rushed forward, expecting to throw him off his  

guard by the suddenness and vigour of their attack; in this, however, they were  

unhappily deceived-the ruffian discharged both the weapons at the same moment, by  

one of which Turner was severely wounded in the head, while the fatal contents of the  

other lodged in the body of the unfortunate Price, who languished a few hours in great  

agony and then died. 

The jury, after a consultation of about three minutes, pronounced the verdict of  

guilty. Through a flaw in the indictment for the murder an objection was taken by  

counsel. This was urged nearly two hours, when Mr Baron Perryn intimated a wish to  

take the opinion of the twelve judges of England, but the counsel for the prosecution,  

waiving the point for the present, insisted on the prisoner's being tried on the second  

indictment, for feloniously shooting at Barnaby Windsor, which, the learned counsel  

said, would occupy no great portion of time, as it could be sufficiently supported by  

the testimony of a single witness. He was accordingly tried, and found guilty on a  

second capital indictment: The prisoner, who, contrary to general expectation, had in a  

great measure hitherto refrained from his usual audacity, began, with unparalleled  

insolence of expression and gesture, to ask his Lordship if he was to be murdered by  

the evidence of one witness. Several times he repeated the question, till the jury  

returned him guilty. 

When the judge appeared in the black cap, the emblem assumed at the time of  

passing sentence on convicted felons, Avershaw, with the most unbridled insolence  

and bravado, clapped his hat upon his head, and pulled up his breeches with a vulgar  

swagger; and during the whole of the ceremony, which deeply affected all present  

except the senseless object himself, he stared full in the face of the judge with a  

malicious sneer and affected contempt, and continued this conduct till he was taken,  

bound hand and foot, from the dock, venting curses and insults on the judge and jury  

for having consigned him to "murder." 

This brutal conduct continued to the last. In the interval between receiving  

sentence of death and the execution, having got some black cherries, he amused  

himself with painting on the white walls of the cell in which he was confined,  

sketches of various robberies which he had committed; one representing him running  

up to the horses' heads of a post-chaise, presenting a pistol at the driver, with the  

words, D--n your eyes, stop," issuing out of his mouth; another where he was firing  

into the chaise; a third, where the parties had quitted the carriage; several, in which he  

was portrayed in the act of taking money from the passengers, and other scenes of a  

similar character. 

He was executed on Kennington Common, on the 3rd of August, 1795, in the  

presence of an immense multitude of spectators, among whom he recognised many  

acquaintances and confederates, to whom he bowed, nodded, and laughed with the  

most unfeeling indifference. He had a flower in his mouth, and his waistcoat and shin  

were unbuttoned, leaving his bosom open in the true style of vulgar gaiety; and,  

talking to the mob, and venting curses on the officers, he died, as he had lived, a  

ruffian and a brute! 

With Avershaw suffered John Little, who, having had employment at the  

laboratory of the palace at Kew, became acquainted with Mr Macevoy and Mrs King,  

persons of very advanced years, and who had been many years resident at Kew.  

Supposing they had some property at home, he watched an opportunity and murdered  

them both. 

The infamy of Avershaw's life, and the atrocity of his deeds, rendered him a fit  

object for the posthumous punishment of hanging in chains on the arena of his crimes,  

and (painful as is the record, the truth must be told,) while the disgusting carcass of  

this malefactor, devoured by the birds and withered by the elements, gradually  

disappeared, the spot on which he had been gibbeted was converted into a temple of  

infamy, to which the thieves and vagabonds of London resorted in a sort of  

pilgrimage; and while the leading ruffians of the flash school, of which Avershaw was  

the child and champion, procured from his decaying and piece-meal carcass the bones  

of his fingers and toes to convert into stoppers for their tobacco-pipes, the tyro villains  

contented themselves with tearing the buttons from his clothes, as mementos of the  

estimation in which they held their arch prototype.

KID WAKE  

Convicted and imprisoned for an assault upon his Majesty, on the 20th of  

February, 1796

IN this case the indictment charged that on the 29th of October, 1795, as the  

King went in the state coach to the House of Peers to meet his Parliament, Kid Wake,  

and a number of other disorderly persons, made a great noise, by shouting, hissing,  

hooting, groaning and calling out, "No war, down with him," etc.; the same indecent  

behaviour was repeated on his Majesty's return, in which a window of his coach was  

broken. 

Dr Wolford and Mr Stockdale were called on the part of the Crown, and  

proved the charge in the clearest manner. Mr Erskine made some observations on the  

defendant's character. 

The Lord Chief justice said: "Gentlemen of the jury, I have nothing to sum up  

to you. The question is whether the law which protects every subject under the King's  

Government is sufficient to protect the King." 

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. 

When brought up to receive the judgment of the Court, Mr Justice Ashurst  

addressed the defendant. He said that he had been convicted, upon the clearest and  

most satisfactory evidence, of a crime of a most atrocious and, he was happy to say,  

almost of an unprecedented nature. He had experienced much mercy from those by  

whom he was prosecuted; for if the law had been stretched to its utmost rigour he  

might have stood convicted of a crime of a much higher nature. The present case  

afforded a very strong instance of the unequalled mildness of the laws of this country;  

for he believed this was the only country in the world in which, for such an offence,  

he would not have paid the forfeit of his life. The evidence adduced at the trial  

afforded the most convincing proofs that the defendant was a man of a bad and  

malignant heart, and the explanation which he had since attempted to give of his  

conduct, in the affidavits which he had filed, was by no means satisfactory. He had  

endeavoured to account for the contortions of his countenance by a defect in his sight,  

which always had the effect of producing a distortion of his features when he  

attempted to look particularly at any object; but if this could be supposed to account  

for the contortion of his countenance, it could not for the language he used, such as  

"no George," etc. 

The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner be committed to the custody of  

the keeper of the penitentiary-house in and for the county of Gloucester, and be kept  

to hard labour for the space of five years; and within the first three months of that time  

that he stand in and upon the pillory for one hour, between the hours of eleven and  

two o'clock in the afternoon, in some public street in Gloucester, on a market-day; and  

that he give sureties in a thousand pounds for his good behaviour for the term of ten  

years, to be computed from the expiration of the said five years; and that he be further  

imprisoned till he find the said sureties.

RICHARD PARKER  

The Chief of the Mutineers in the British Fleet. Executed at the Yardarm of  

L'Espion Man-of-War in 1796, at Sheerness

Parker hanged at the yard-arm

THE magnitude of this man's offence, occurring at a period when the  

preservation of the state mainly depended on the exertions of the navy, threw the  

whole empire into consternation. Dissatisfaction had for some time existed, and a  

mutinous spirit evinced itself among the seamen, who, on this occasion, appointed  

delegates from all the ships at Sheerness and the Nore, and drew up a statement of  

grievances, dated 20th of May, 1797, requiring, among other demands, a more equal  

distribution of prize-money, and some modification of the articles of war. These  

delegates assembled on board the Sandwich, of 28 guns, and not only superseded all  

the captains in their command, but elected Parker president of the convention, and his  

orders were implicitly obeyed as admiral of the squadron. 

Richard Parker had received a good education, was bred to the navy, and about  

the conclusion of the American War was an acting lieutenant in one of his Majesty's  

ships. He soon came into the possession of a considerable sum of money, and shortly  

after he arrived in this country and married a farmer's daughter in Aberdeenshire, with  

whom he received a decent patrimony. 

At this time, being without employment, he devoted himself to every species  

of dissipation, which soon finished his fortune and involved him in debt, on account  

of which he was cast into the jail of Edinburgh, where he was at the time the country  

was raising seamen for the navy. 

He then entered as one of the volunteers for Perthshire, received the bounty,  

and was released from prison, upon paying the creditor a part of his bounty. He was  

put on board the tender then in Leith Roads, which carried him, with many others, to  

the Nore. 

On the passage the captain distinguished Parker, both by his activity and polite  

address. He was known in the mutinous fleet by the appellation of "Admiral Parker",  

for Captain Watson, of the Leith tender, before he sailed from the Nore, was ordered,  

by the crew of the Sandwich, to come on board, which he did, and was then  

introduced to, and interrogated by, Parker, whom he knew on first sight. Parker also  

recollected him, and from this circumstance he experienced great favour. 

Parker ordered every man on board to treat Captain Watson well, saying he  

was a seamen's friend, and had treated him well, and that if any man used him  

otherwise he should instantly be --. Here he pointed to the rope at the yardarm. 

Captain Watson took an opportunity of hinting to Parker the impropriety of his  

conduct, and the consequences that might follow. It seemed to throw a momentary  

damp on his spirits; but he expressed a wish to waive the subject, and Captain Watson  

proceeded on his voyage. 

The mutiny was happily suppressed, and a considerable reward being offered  

for the apprehension of Parker, the accounted ringleader, on the arrival of Lieutenant  

Mott, with the proclamations, etc., the crews of all the ships readily submitted. Parker  

himself could not oppose this spirit. 

In consequence of this the Sandwich came under the guns of Sheerness, and  

Admiral Buckner's boat, commanded by the coxswain, and containing a picket guard  

of the West York Militia, went on board, to bring Parker on shore. Several of the  

officers of the Sandwich were on deck, but very few of the men appeared. As soon as  

Parker heard that a boat had come for him he surrendered himself to four of the ship's  

crew, to protect him against the outrages of the other seamen, whose vengeance he  

feared. 

Admiral Buckner's coxswain told the officers on deck his business, and  

claimed their assistance. The lieutenant drew his sword, and the party, consisting of  

eight or ten, went down below, where Parker was surrendered into their hands. They  

tied his hands together behind, and the officers conducted him into the boat, which  

had eight or ten rowers, and a party of the West York Militia seated in the head, with  

their faces towards the stern, and their muskets held upright in their hands, ready  

charged. Parker was seated in the stern part, with his face towards the head; behind  

him was the coxswain, and before him the lieutenant of the Sandwich, holding a  

drawn sword over him. On landing, he was much hissed, when he said aloud: "Do not  

hoot me; it is not my fault. I will clear myself." 

He was then sent to Maidstone Jail, under a strong guard, his arms being tied  

behind his back. After a long trial, which commenced soon after his apprehension, he  

was found guilty. 

After a solemn pause of nearly ten minutes the Lord Advocate rose and, with  

his head uncovered, read the awful sentence-viz. "The Court judges Richard Parker to  

suffer death, and to be hanged by the neck, on board any one of his Majesty's ships,  

and at such time as the Lords of the Admiralty may think proper to appoint." 

The prisoner listened to the sentence without emotion, and addressed the Court  

as follows:-- "I have heard your sentence; I shall submit to it without a struggle. I feel  

thus, because I am sensible of the rectitude of my intentions. Whatever offences may  

have been committed, I hope my life will be the only sacrifice. I trust it will be  

thought a sufficient atonement. Pardon, I beseech you, the other men; I know they will  

return with alacrity to their duty." 

The president then briefly addressed himself to the prisoner. He said that,  

notwithstanding the enormity of the crimes of which he had been found guilty, on the  

fullest and clearest evidence, yet the Court, in order to afford him the necessary time  

to expiate his offcnces, and to make his peace with God, would then not name any day  

for his execution, but leave that point to the determination of Lhe lords of the  

admiralty. The prisoner then withdrew, and was soon put in irons. 

The time of his execution was fixed for Friday, the 30th of June. 1797. At  

eight o'clock in the morning a gun was fired on board his Majesty's ship L'Espion,  

lying off Sheerness garrison, Vice-Admiral Lutwidge's flagship, and the yellow flag,  

the signal of capital punishment, was hoisted, which was immediately repeated by the  

Sandwich hoisting the same colour on her foretop. 

The prisoner was awakened a little after six o'clock, from a sound sleep, by the  

provost-marshal, who, with a file of marines, composed his guard; he arose with  

cheerfulness, and requested permission might be asked for a barber to attend him,  

which was granted. He soon dressed himself in a neat suit of mourning (waistcoat  

excepted), wearing his half-boots over a pair of black silk stockings. He then took his  

breakfast, talked of a will he had written, in which he had bequeathed to his wife a  

little estate he said he was heir to, and after that lamented the misfortune that had been  

brought on the country by the mutiny, but solemnly denied having the least  

connection or correspondence with any disaffected persons ashore; and declared that  

it was chiefly owing to him that the ships had not been carried into the enemy's ports. 

At half past eight he was told the chaplain of the ship was ready to attend him  

to prayers upon the quarter-deck, which he immediately ascended, uncovered: at his  

first entrance on the deck he looked a little paler than corn mon, but soon recovered  

his usual complexion; he bowed to t lie officers, and, a chair being allowed him, he sat  

down for a few moments: he then arose, and told the clergyman he wished to attend  

him: the chaplain informed him he had selected two psalms appropriate to his  

situation; to which the pris oner, assenting, said, "And with your permission, sir, I will  

add a third," and named the 51st. He then recited each alternate verse in a manner  

peculiarly impressive. 

At nine o'clock the preparatory gun was fired from L'Espion, which he heard  

without the smallest emotion. Prayers being soon after closed, he rose, and asked  

Captain Moss "if he might be indulged with a glass of white wine": which being  

granted, he took it, and, lifting up his eyes, exclaimed, "I drink first to the salvation of  

my soul! and next to the forgiveness of my enemies!" Addressing him self to Captain  

Moss, he said, "he hoped he would shake hands with him"; which the captain did: he  

then desired "that he might be remembered to his companions on board the Neptune;  

with his last breath sent an entreaty to them to prepare for their destiny, and refrain  

from unbecoming levity." His arms were now bound, and the procession moved from  

the quarterdeck to the forecastle, passing through a double file of marines on the  

starboard side, to a platform erected on the cat-head, with an elevated projection.  

Arriving there, he knelt with the chaplain, and joined in some devout ejaculations, to  

all of which he repeated loudly, "Amen." Rising again, the Admiral's warrant of  

execution, addressed to Captain Moss, was now read by the clerk, in which the  

sentence of the court martial, the order of the Board of Admiralty and his Majesty's  

approbation of the whole proceedings were fully recited, which the prisoner heard  

with great attention, and bowed his head, as if in assent, at the close of it. He now  

asked the captain whether he might be allowed to speak, and immediately  

apprehending his intention might be misconceived he added: "I am not going, sir, to  

address the ship's company. I wish only to declare that I acknowledge the justice of  

the sentence under which I suffer; and I hope my death may be deemed a sufficient  

atonement, and save the lives of others." 

He then requested a minute to collect himself, and knelt down alone, about  

that space of time; then rose up and said: "I am ready." Holding his head up, he said to  

the boatswain's mate: "Take off my handkerchief (of black silk); which was done, and  

the provost-marshal placed the halter over his head (which had been prepared with  

grease,) but, doing it awkwardly, the prisoner said rather pettishly to the boatswain's  

mate, "Do you do it, for he seems to know nothing about it." The halter was then  

spliced to the reeve-rope: all this being adjusted, the marshal attempted to put a cap  

on, which he refused; but, on being told that it was indispensable, he submitted,  

requesting it might not be pulled over his eyes till he desired it. He then turned round,  

for the first time, and gave a steady look at his shipmates on the forecastle, and, with  

an affectionate kind of smile, nodded his head, and said "Good-by to you!" He now  

said, "Captain Moss, is the gun primed?"-"It is."-"Is the match alight?"-"All is  

ready."-- On this he advanced a little, and said, "Will any gentleman be so good as to  

lend me a white handkerchief for the signal?" After some little pause, a gentleman  

stepped forward and gave him one; to whom bowing, he returned thanks. He now  

ascended the platform, and repeated the same questions about the gun. He now  

ascended the platform. The cap was then drawn over his face, and he walked by firm  

degrees up to the extremity of the scaffold, and dropped a white handkerchief, which  

he had borrowed from one of the gentlemen present, and put his hands in his coat- 

pockets with great rapidity. At the moment he sprang off, the fatal bow-gun fired, and  

the reeve-rope, catching him, ran him up, though not with great velocity, to the  

yardarm. When suspended about midway his body appeared extremely convulsed for  

a few seconds, immediately after which no appearance of life remained. 

It being ebb of tide, the starboard yard-arm pointed to the Isle of Grain, where  

scaffolding was erected for the spectators on shore; a considerable number of yachts,  

cutters, and other craft, surrounded the Sandwich. The last time the prisoner knelt  

with the chaplain at the cat-head, though he made his responses regularly, his  

attention was particularly directed the whole time to the armed boats of the fleet,  

which were plying round on duty. The whole conduct of this awful ceremony was  

extremely decorous and impressive; it was evident, from the countenances of the crew  

of the Sandwich, that the general feeling for the fate of their mutinous conductor was  

such as might be wished: not a word, and scarce a whisper, was heard among them. 

The behaviour of this unhappy man, throughout the whole of his trial, was  

firm and manly; while he was before the Court, decent and respectful, and from the  

time he received his sentence, till his execution, resigned and penitent. The  

uncommon fortitude he displayed during his trial did not forsake him even in the last  

moments of his wretched existence.

WILLIAM LEE  

Executed before Newgate, 20th of April, 1796, for Burglary

WILLIAM LEE was an Irishman, and he broke into the shop of John Dingwell  

and Gerald Baillieu, then eminent jewellers in St James's Street, and stole from thence  

a quantity of diamonds and other valuable articles. With this booty he set off for  

Dublin, and there offered a large diamond pin for sale, to Mr Ambrose Moore, a  

jeweller. Mr Moore, suspecting that Lee did not come honestly into possession of so  

valuable an article, interrogated him accordingly; and the thief replied that his wife  

lived as servant to the Princesses Elizabeth, Mary and Sophia, by whom the pin had  

been given her. 

This story of Royal generosity did not, however, satisfy the Irish jeweller, who  

caused our hero to be apprehended as a suspicious person, and he was committed to  

Dublin Bridewell, where he offered the keeper, Richard Warren, seven hundred  

pounds' worth of diamonds to favour his escape, swearing that he would never  

discover the manner of his enlargement. 

The keeper affected to agree to these terms, whereupon Lee delivered him a  

number of diamonds, but the faithless jailer detained both them and his prisoner. 

News of this transaction reaching London, Messrs Dingwell & Baillieu  

applied to the Secretary of State, who directed Warren to bring his prisoner and the  

diamonds to London. On his arrival at the Old Bailey, Moore proved the transaction  

of the pin, and Warren produced the bribe of diamonds, which Mr Baillieu swore was  

the property of his partner and himself. Hannah Hannats proved that the prisoner set  

off for Dublin with one Sarah Chandler, who was disguised in man's apparel. 

The diamond stealer was convicted, and executed before Newgate, on the 20th  

of April, 1796.

HENRY WESTON  

Betrayed his Employer's Confidence, committed Forgery, and was executed  

before Newgate, 6th of July, 1796

HENRY WESTON belonged to a very respectable family in Ireland, and was  

recommended to Mr Cowan, of Ely Place, to manage his army agency concerns.  

Henry's attention to business was such as soon gained him the confidence of his  

employer. Mr Cowan, about the year 1794, having occasion to be absent in the  

country, gave Weston an unlimited order to draw upon his banker for any sums he  

might want; and to this implicit confidence upon his part may be dated the origin of  

the young man's ruin, for, having no person to overlook or to be a check upon him, he  

was tempted to hazard a large sum of money at a gaming-house in Pall Mail, which he  

lost; and, having gamed away nearly the whole property of his employer, he was at  

length induced, in the hope of recovering it, to forge the name of General Tonyn to a  

warrant of attorney, whereby he received upwards of ten thousand pounds at the bank,  

which sum did not uphold his extravagance more than two nights. 

This matter lay undiscovered for some time, as he remitted the General's  

dividends regularly upon their becoming due. He likewise obtained from his cousin,  

Sir Hugh Walter, a large part of the fortune left him by his uncles, under the pretence  

of laying it out to advantage in the stocks, all of which was sunk at the gaming-table.  

This brought him to such a state of desperation that, to obtain more money, he had the  

audacity to take a woman to the bank to personate the sister of General Tonyn, and in  

consequence obtained another considerable sum. This he had a favourable opportunity  

of doing, as he was in the habit of transacting money affairs for that lady, who had  

met him about two months before at the Panorama, where she accused him of  

neglecting her payments. 

Finding at length he could hold out no longer, he set off, about four o'clock on  

Friday, for Liverpool, where he was arrested on board a vessel on the point of sailing  

for America. He made several attempts to destroy himself, by cutting his throat. 

His trial came on on 14th of May, at the sessions-house in the Old Bailey,  

before Mr Common Serjeant. The prisoner, after a most affecting trial, was found  

guilty. Thejury having delivered their verdict, the prisoner addressed the Court in  

these words: 

"My Lord and gentlemen of the jury, the verdict which has now been passed  

upon me I hear with calmness and resignation, which I am happy in possessing upon  

so awful an occasion. I am, my Lord, as my appearance may easily show, a very  

young man. I hope the numerous young men who surround me will take example by  

my fate, and avoid those excesses, and fatal vice of gambling, which have brought me  

to ruin and disgrace, and I hope too that those further advanced in years will be  

cautious not to confine with too unlimited a control the management of their concerns  

to the care of inexperienced young men. The justice of my condemnation I  

acknowledge, and shall submit to it with patience and, I hope, with fortitude." 

Sentence of death was passed; and as Weston entertained an abhorrence of  

being seen by the mob upon the scaffold he expressed an earnest desire that the  

platform should drop the moment he was tied to the gallows. 

Another malefactor, named John Roberts, was sentenced to die at the same  

time, and Weston found it necessary to have his consent. One of the clergymen who  

attended Weston undertook to negotiate the melancholy business. 

Upon Roberts being informed of the wish of his fellow-sufferer he replied  

"What! Is Weston afraid of being seen? That is not my case. I am not only willing that  

the people should see me, but likewise take warning by my untimely end; and  

therefore I desire to have the usual prayers under the gallows." The ordinary replied  

that he had a right to that indulgence, and it should be granted. 

On the morning of the execution the Sacrament was administered by the  

ordinary, who afterwards prayed with the unhappy prisoners on the scaffold, attended  

by one of the divines alone, as the other two could not make up their minds to go on  

the platform, though requested by the unhappy young Weston. 

When the executioner put on the cap, Weston pulled it as far as he possibly  

could over his face, and at the same time held a white handkerchief to his mouth, so  

that, during prayers, the populace could by no means see his countenance. He wept  

abundantly just before he was turned off, and squeezed the minister's hand, being no  

doubt at that time much agitated.

CHARLES SCOLDWELL  

A Sheriff Officer, convicted of stealing Two Ducks, and sentenced on 23rd of  

July, 1796, to Transportation for Seven Years

CHARLES SCOLDWELL was a sheriff officer, and the extraordinary crime  

of which he was convicted took place at Bedfont, near Hammersmith. The trial came  

on at the Old Bailey, before the recorder, on the 23rd of July, 1796. The indictment  

charged him with feloniously stealing two live tame ducks, and it was stated by Mr  

Ally, counsel for the prosecution, that this theft, or act of grand larceny, was attended  

with many aggravating circumstances of oppression. 

The prisoner, who was a servant of the law, was executing a writ which he had  

against the prosecutor, Mr Spurling; the debt amounted to sixteen pounds, seven  

shillings. At ten at night the prisoner obtained admission to Mr Spurling, and  

informed him that he had a writ against him, and he must immediately go with him to  

Newgate. To this the prosecutor demurred as to the harshness of the intended removal,  

for if there was any demand against him he was ready to settle it. The prisoner replied:  

"No, no, you shall not settle it; you must immediately come with me to Newgate, and  

you must hire a post-chaise." Poor Mr Spurling replied: "It is hard to be obliged to  

hire a post-chaise to carry oneself to Newgate; if you will take me in a humble single  

horse-chaise, which I have of my own, I will go with you to Newgate." The prisoner's  

follower, whose name was Taylor, said he thought they had better settle the matter;  

and, in the prisoner's presence, asked him what kind of accommodation he could  

afford. Mr Spurling said: "I have fifteen pounds in the house that you shall have, and  

something else to secure the balance, being one pound, seven shillings." Upon this the  

prisoner asked him if he had a watch, and he replied in the affirmative. The prisoner  

immediately said: "I must have that." This treatment was the more oppressive at that  

period as his wife was then very near that crisis when every good husband is more  

than ordinarily careful of his wife's safety, and therefore Mr Spurling, rather than  

leave his wife in that situation, gave the prisoner his watch, which he took, together  

with the fifteen pounds already mentioned. Scoldwell had no sooner got possession of  

these than he increased his demand. Said he: "This is a trifling thing; such gentlemen  

as we are cannot come into the country without something to bear our expenses."  

Upon that he asked the prosecutor for some money; who replied that he had only a  

few halfpence left, which he had taken in the course of his trade that day, and which  

amounted to about ten shillings. The prisoner, Scoldwell, received that ten shillings  

also. Soon after he asked if there were no fowls about the house. Mr Spurling told him  

he had only one or two. Then the prisoner inquired for a goose, because, he said, his  

wife was very fond of goose. The prosecutor said he had one; and the prisoner said he  

would take it to town. 

On the prosecutor's remonstrating with him, the prisoner said he must have a  

goose. The prosecutor then let him have one. Still the rapacity of this man was not  

satisfied. He was no sooner possessed of this but, taking advantage of the prosecutor's  

peculiar situation with respect to his wife, he pursued his demands, extending even to  

the lease of the house. The prosecutor, wearied with his repeated exactions, told him  

the lease was his all, for he had expended three hundred pounds on the premises a  

short time before. However, the prisoner obtained possession of this lease also. These  

demands being thus complied with, the prisoner at the bar was still discontented. He  

said: "I must have a note for forty pounds on condition that the lease, watch and  

everything shall be mine, unless this debt and costs are legally settled within twenty- 

one days." This note, also, the prosecutor gave him; and here was a termination to  

such almost boundless rapacity. The prisoner left the prosecutor at about four or five  

in the morning, who, having to prepare his bread, retired to his bakehouse. He saw the  

prisoner, however, going towards the stable, in which were those two ducks which  

were the subject of inquiry. The prisoner soon after left the stable and went away.  

About six in the morning the prosecutor's wife ordered the ducks to be let out and fed,  

as they formerly, had been, but the ducks were gone from the stable. The prosecutor,  

it appears, saw those two ducks there about two hours before; and he could prove  

positively that they were actually in the stable at that very time. He could also prove  

that nobody went into the stable but the prisoner; and a sort of confession, or at least  

an admission, by the prisoner himself was established that he was the person who  

stole these ducks, for it happened that the prisoner, as he was coming back to town,  

met with a driver of a stage-coach. He got on the top of the coach, and in the course of  

a few miles, not foreseeing, at the moment, the event of the evening, tapped the  

coachman on the shoulder, and cried out: "Quack! Quack! Tick! Tick!" The coachman  

asked what he meant. The prisoner replied: " I have done the baker out of his ducks!  

have done the baker out of his watch! " When they had proceeded a great way farther,  

the coachman stopped to water, and the ducks falling out of the prisoner's pocket the  

coachman said to him: "Mr Constable, if you do not take care you will lose the ducks  

you have stolen." His reply was not a denial of that charge. "No, no," says he, I will  

take care; I will keep them fast." 

After the examination of several witnesses, the fact, as laid in the indictment,  

being clearly proved, the recorder summed up the evidence; and the jury, after half- 

an-hour's consideration, returned a verdict of guilty. 

The prisoner, aged forty-one, was sentenced to be transported for seven years.

JOHN CLARKE  

Executed near Bromley, in Kent, 29th of July, 1796, for murdering a  

Dairymaid

JOHN CLARKE was gardener to Charles Long, Esq., near Bromley, in Kent,  

and at the Summer Assizes for 1796, at Maidstone, was indicted for the wilful murder  

of Elizabeth Mann, his fellow-servant, who lived as dairymaid with that gentleman. 

The deceased was observed, a few days before she was murdered, to appear  

very much dejected, in consequence of the prisoner's not paying that attention to her  

which he was accustomed to do. The day on which she disappeared was a Monday,  

and on the Tuesday she was found by the steward and coachman in the dairy, with a  

deep wound in her throat and a cord fastened tight round her neck. From the intimacy  

which subsisted between the prisoner and her, their suspicions fell on him; in  

consequence of which two officers from Bow Street were sent for, who, on their  

arrival at Mr Long's house, went to the dairy, where, after a strict search, nothing was  

found that could possibly create a suspicion that the unfortunate young woman had  

been guilty of suicide. 

They immediately took Clarke into custody. He denied knowing anything of  

the matter; but, in stating how he had been employed on the Monday evening on  

which the murder was perpetrated, he contradicted himself in his several relations. 

A piece of rope was then produced, which had been found in the tool-house of  

the prisoner, which proved to be of the very same manufacture, texture and size as  

that found about the neck of the deceased. 

The jury, after a short deliberation, found him guilty. He was ordered for  

execution, and his body afterwards to be dissected.

JOSEPH HODGES AND RICHARD PROBIN  

Convicted at the Old Bailey, 1796, of a Confidence Trick called Cross- 

Dropping, and sentenced to Transportation

FORMERLY this description of fraud was frequently practised in London  

upon countrymen. The dupe, in the present instance, was William Headley, an  

ironmonger at Cambridge, who, on the trial of these robbers, deposed that on the 7th  

of July, 1796, he was going from Shoe Lane to the Angel Inn, St Clement's, to take a  

place on the outside of the coach, to see his brother in Wiltshire. He met Hodges in  

Butcher Row, and left him to take his place. Having taken it, Hodges overtook him in  

Portugal Street, but before he saw him he beheld a parcel lying at his right foot.  

Hodges clapped a hazel cane on the parcel, picked up the parcel, and tore away the  

middle part of the paper, and showed the red, which appeared like a pocket-book. He  

put it into his pocket, but took it out again in a minute, opened the end, and doubled it  

as large as he possibly could to satisfy the witness that there was something in it, and  

he told him he had got a finding. Witness asked him what it was, and he stopped near  

Mr Chorley's, the Castle, in Portugal Street. He said this was not a proper place to  

show it; but if witness would go in, and have something to drink, he would show it to  

him. 

Accordingly he went in with him, and the prisoner Probin was there (that was  

the first time he had seen him). Hodges took out the pocket-book, unfolded it,  

produced a receipt from Mr Smith (which witness showed the Court), and read as  

follows:-- 

London, 20th of June, 1796.  

Received of John King, Esq., the sum of three hundred and twenty pounds for  

one brilliant-diamond cross, by me,  

WILLIAM SMITH 

This was upon a fourpenny stamp. Hodges held it rather under the table, read  

the receipt, and seemed very much alarmed and confused at finding it. Witness read it,  

and Hodges asked what they should do with the book and its contents; then he showed  

witness the cross, who thought it should be taken to this William Smith, the jeweller.  

Hodges confessed himself much at a loss what to do with it, as he did not approve of  

sending it to the jeweller; and asked witness if he had any objection to its being  

mentioned to that gentleman (Probin). There was no other person then in the room,  

and they did not appear before that to know one another. Witness consented to its  

being shown to him, and he was asked to give his opinion of this finding. Probin  

addressed himself to them with a great deal of politeness, and said: "Gentlemen, if  

you are in any difficulty, I will assist you;" and he asked if anybody was near, or if  

they were both together. They told him nobody was near. He asked who picked it up;  

witness told him Hodges. Probin then said he thought Hodges ought to make witness  

a present, as being a party concerned. Hodges agreed to that proposal, and said he  

would go to his banker to get change for some drafts to make him a present, for being  

with him when the parcel was found. He said he should not be gone above ten  

minutes; but Probin said: "I think you should not take the pocket-book with you," and  

proposed it should be left with witness. Hodges went, and returned in about ten  

minutes, very hot, and said he had seen his banker, but he was obliged to go to the  

Exchange, and he should not see him again till four o'clock. 

The business was then put off till four o'clock, and a meeting was appointed at  

the Angel, behind St Clement's. Probin asked witness his name and where he came  

from, and he told him; and Hodges gave him his name and address, saying he came  

from Worcester, and was in the hop business. Witness forgot the name Hodges gave,  

but was sure it was not that of Hodges. Probin gave his name as William Jones, No. 7  

Charing Cross. Probin then said Hodges ought to have the pocket-book and the  

valuable property in it till four o'clock. Probin then asked witness what he would  

leave to have the property left with him till four o'clock: he asked him if he would  

leave one hundred pounds as a security for his meeting them. Witness pulled out some  

papers he had concealed in his stocking, and took therefrom a bill for one hundred  

pounds; it was a bank bill on demand. Probin took it out of Hodges's hand, turned it  

over, and examined it; said it was pieced, but it would do very well. Witness left the  

note in the care of Hodges, and departed. 

About five minutes after he showed the cross to a friend, and, from what he  

said, witness was alarmed, and went to inquire for Mr Jones, No. 7 Charing Cross, but  

he could find no such person; and about two or three o'clock he gave information at  

Bow Street, and described the persons of the parties concerned. This event took place  

on Thursday, and Mr Headley saw them in custody at Bow Street on the Monday  

following. 

Mr Lamb produced the bank-note, which the prosecutor deposed to as the  

same note he left with Hodges, the same number, and he also knew it by being pieced. 

John Furmean, a jeweller, said there was no intrinsic value in the diamond  

cross. He would not give anything for it if offered to him for sale. 

Mr Francis Salkeld, one of the cashiers of the bank, swore that he gave value  

for the one-hundred-pound bank-note, and also to his writing on the face of it "W.  

Hodges, Holborn." The prisoner represented himself to be William Hodges, the  

witness supposed, by his writing that upon it. He gave ten ten-pound bank-notes, as  

appeared by the book. On looking at four bank-notes, which were found on Probin,  

the witness said they answered in date and number to the four in his entry. 

Probin, in his defence, said that the notes which were found on him were  

Hodges's, who, having been intoxicated the preceding night, had given him his  

pocket-book to take care of. Hodges made no defence. They were both found guilty,  

and sentenced to be transported each for seven years.

SARAH PENELOPE STANLEY  

The Female Trooper, convicted at the Old Bailey, in October Sessions,  

1796, of Petty Larceny

THIS woman was born at Mercival Hall, in Warwickshire, the seat of Mr  

Stratford, to whom her father was steward, whose name was Brindley. She was  

apprenticed to a milliner at Lichfield, and married to a shoemaker. Her husband being  

an idle, dissolute fellow, they were reduced to very indigent circumstances. She left  

him to come to London. Having had a good education, and writing an excellent hand,  

she put on men's apparel, and for some time wrote for gentlemen in the Commons, but  

meeting with a recruiting sergeant at Westminster, she engaged to serve in a regiment  

of light horse, then being raised, called the Ayrshire Fencible Cavalry. She served  

upwards of a year with great credit to herself, and was promoted to the rank of  

corporal. She rode extremely well, and had the care of two horses; but was discovered  

at Carlisle to be a woman, when she was honourably discharged, after many marks of  

friendship shown her, not only by Major Horsley, in whose troop she rode, but by the  

other officers and many of the inhabitants of Carlisle. 

She came to London, was much reduced, and, through mere necessity, stole  

the cloak for which she was tried and convicted. She acknowledged her crime, and  

said it was the first offence of the kind she had committed, and had meant to make  

satisfaction. The Court passed a light sentence upon her, and she was discharged from  

Newgate. The two under-sheriffs and the keeper gave her some money to provide her  

with a few necessaries, and she left the court, promising henceforward to seek an  

honest livelihood in the proper habit of her sex. She was a masculine-looking woman,  

of about thirty years of age.

JAMES M'KEAN  

Executed for Murder, 25th of January, 1797, at Glasgow

JAMES M'KEAN kept a public-house on the highroad between Glasgow and  

Lanark. A carrier of the name of James Buchanan, about six o'clock one evening in  

winter-time, came to his house for rest and refreshment. 

The landlord conducted the weary traveller to a room, then suddenly seized  

him and instantly cut his throat with a razor, which divided both the carotid arteries,  

and robbed him of his watch and a considerable sum of money. A noise having  

excited some surprise in his wife, she ran to the door, which was opened by M'Kean.  

Alarmed at the sight of some blood lying on the floor, she shrieked "Murder!"-on  

which her husband instantly ran off. 

M'Kean was apprehended at Lamlash, in the Isle of Arran. Next morning he  

was conveyed to Glasgow in a post-chaise. On his arrival, about eight o'clock, the joy  

of the populace, at his apprehension, could not be restrained: they hailed the officers  

with loud acclamations, and the air resounded with huzzas when they saw him  

securely lodged in jail. 

Buchanan's pocket-book, containing bank-notes to the amount of one hundred  

and eighteen pounds, his watch and several papers were found upon M'Kean. On his  

examination by the magistrates, M'Kean confessed the robbery, but endeavoured to  

palliate the charge of murder. 

This wretch was found guilty, and was executed at the Cross of Glasgow, on a  

newly erected gibbet. He appeared on the scaffold dressed in white.

MARTIN CLENCH AND JAMES MACKLEY  

Believed to be innocent of a Charge of Murder, they were executed before  

Newgate, 5th of June, 1797, after the Gallows collapsed

THIS is another case wherein, it was believed, the unfortunate men died  

innocent of the crime alleged against them. 

Sydney Fryer, Esq., a gentleman of considerable property, on Sunday, 7th of  

May, 1797, called, by appointment, on his cousin, Miss Ann Fryer, who resided in  

Shepherd Street, Oxford Street, in order to take a walk with her into the environs of  

London, to pay a visit to their aunt. When they had proceeded across the fields to the  

back part of Islington Workhouse they heard, as they thought, a female voice in  

distress; upon which Mr Fryer, contrary to his cousin's advice, leaped over the hedge  

into the field whence the voice seemed to proceed, but instead of seeing a woman he  

met with three men, who, upon his rashly drawing his tuck-stick (the sword of which  

dropped out), fired, and wounded him a little above the left eye, and he fell into a  

small pond. One of the villains took the watch out of his pocket and a purse from the  

lady, and another took her cloak. Mr Fryer died two hours after. 

Several were taken up on suspicion and strictly examined, in the presence of  

Miss Fryer, but dismissed for want of evidence. On the 27th of May the Worship  

Street officers apprehended Clench, Mackley and one Smith, a chip-hat maker; but no  

criminality appearing in the latter, he was discharged, and the other two fully  

committed. 

The prisoners were most impartially tried by Mr Justice Grose. They had four  

counsel: Messrs Const, Knapp, Alley and Gurney; so that no ingenuity was wanting to  

plead their case effectually to the jury. Indeed there was no positive evidence except  

Miss Fryer's, who swore to the identity of the two prisoners' persons. 

The jury, having retired for half-an-hour, returned with a verdict of guilty. 

These two men were accordingly executed, and their bodies were publicly  

exposed in a stable, in Little Bridge Street, near Apothecaries' Hall, Surgeons' Hall. 

A short time before their caps were drawn over their eyes the platform, by  

some improper management, suddenly went down, with the two clergymen, the  

executioner and his man. The Catholic priest who attended Clench, being very lusty,  

suffered most, but fortunately not materially. When the two men died, most of the  

people were of opinion that their fate was just; but soon after the confessions of three  

separate criminals, who could have had no interest in taking the crime upon  

themselves, threw a different light upon the transaction, and recalled to mind the  

strong assertions which Clench and Mackley had made of their innocence; for Clench,  

upon retiring from the bar, returned thanks to the Court for the fairness of his trial, but  

observed (though in a rough way) that, though they were condemned to die, and be  

teased afterwards, alluding to their dissection, they were no more guilty of murder  

than their prosecutrix. One Burton Wood, who was afterwards executed at  

Kennington Common, and another, while under sentence of death, wrote a letter to  

Carpenter Smith, Esq., magistrate of Surrey, declaring the innocence of Clench and  

Mackley, for that they were, with another not then in custody, the murderers. Soon  

after the third man suffered for another offence at Reading gallows, and made the  

same confession. His name was Timms.

REBECCA HOWARD  

Executed at Norwich, 27th of August, 1797, for the Murder of her  

Illegitimate Child 

AT the Norwich Assizes, August, 1797, Rebecca Howard was tried for and  

convicted of the wilful murder of her illegitimate child. Her behaviour during the trial  

was firm and collected; but while the jury were deliberating on the verdict she  

swooned away. 

Previous to her execution she conducted herself with the greatest propriety. On  

Wednesday, at about twelve o'clock, she was conveyed from the city jail to the castle  

ditches, attended by the chaplain and a preacher of the Methodist society. When she  

arrived at the gallows, after singing a psalm with peculiar emphasis, she addressed  

herself to the spectators, and exhorted them to a due observance of the Sabbath, and to  

place all their confidence in God, if they did which, all other things would be added to  

them. She then sat down. 

When asked if she was ready, she said: "Stop, I want to say something else."  

She then earnestly cautioned young folks of her own sex to avoid temptation, and to  

be on their guard against deceitful men, who had brought her to an ignominious death.  

She acknowledged the justness of her sentence, thanked the jailer for his humanity  

and attention, and expressed her forgiveness of all her enemies. Having taken leave of  

a young man and woman with an affectionate kiss, she exclaimed " Lord, have mercy  

on me! God bless you all! " and was immediately launched into eternity. 

After hanging the usual time her body was delivered to the surgeons for  

dissection.

THERESA PHIPOE  

Executed before Newgate, 11th of December, 1797, for Murder

MARIA THERESA PHIPOE, known also by the name of Mary Benson, was a  

woman of masculine behaviour, and of a daring disposition. Two years previous to  

her committing the murder for which she suffered she was convicted of forcibly  

taking from Mr John Cortois a promissory note of hand for two thousand pounds. 

The manner in which she procured this note was as follows. Soon after Mr  

Cortois had sat down in her house, she, knowing that he possessed considerable  

property, bound him, with the assistance of another desperate female acting as her  

servant, to his chair with a cord, and with horrid imprecations threatened-and even  

attempted-to cut his throat unless he gave her his note for two thousand pounds. In a  

state of terror he signed the written instrument. This done, the ferocious female  

thought she might negotiate the note with more safety if he was killed, calling to mind  

Satan's proverb that "Dead men tell no tales." For this diabolical purpose she again  

attempted to murder him, and ordered him instantly to prepare for death, either by  

swallowing arsenic, by a pistol, or stabbing with a knife, which she brandished over  

his head. At length the terrified gentleman became desperate in his turn, and  

attempted to escape. Mrs Phipoe seized him, but he extricated himself, after having  

several of his fingers badly cut with the said knife in the struggle. 

For this most atrocious offence she was indicted and tried. She was found  

guilty; but her counsel moved an arrest of judgment, and an argument upon a point of  

law. It was determined that, great as were the aggravations in committing the crime, it  

did not come within the statute to make it felony without benefit of clergy. She was  

therefore indicted for the assault, found guilty, and sentenced, on the 23rd of May,  

1795, to twelve months' imprisonment in Newgate. 

Mrs Phipoe was discharged at the expiration of that term, and but a very few  

months elapsed ere, in her rapid course of vice, she committed the murder for which  

she was executed. 

She was indicted for that she, not having the fear of God before her eyes, but  

being moved by the instigation of the devil, did, in Garden Street, in the parish of St  

George's-in-the-East, with malice aforethought, on the body of Mary Cox, commit the  

foul crime of murder. 

It appeared in evidence that the deceased was acquainted with the prisoner,  

and that she had called at her lodgings. Soon after the mistress of the house heard a  

scuffle and groaning, so she called two neighbours, and, going to the prisoner's door,  

which was locked, asked what was the matter. She replied the woman was only in a  

fit, but that she was getting better. She then opened the door a little, when the witness  

saw she was stained with blood. Two persons went for a doctor, and a third, pushing  

open the door, saw the deceased bleeding upon the floor. She ran downstairs, crying  

"Murder!" and to her great terror was followed by the wounded woman, who laid hold  

of her. The deceased managed to get into the kitchen, where she was when the  

surgeons and beadles came. She was unable to speak, but yet made herself understood  

by one of the beadles that she had been thus wounded, by the woman upstairs. 

He went up to the prisoner, who was sitting on the bed, and said to her: "For  

God Almighty's sake, what have you done to the woman below?" She answered: "I  

don't know; I believe the devil and passion bewitched me." There was part of a finger  

and a case-knife lying upon the table, He said: "Is this the knife you did the woman's  

business with?" She answered: "Yes." "Is this your finger?" "Yes." "Did the woman  

below cut it off?" "Yes." But this the deceased denied, upon his afterwards  

questioning her about it. 

The surgeon described the deceased to have received five stabs upon the throat  

and neck, besides several wounds in different parts of the body, and agreed with the  

surgeon who afterwards attended her in the hospital that those wounds were  

undoubtedly the cause of her death. The next day the deceased made a declaration  

before a magistrate, wherein she stated that she had purchased of the prisoner a gold  

watch and other articles, for which she paid eleven pounds, and then asked for a china  

coffee-cup, which stood upon the chimneypiece, into the bargain. The prisoner bade  

her take it; but, on doing so, she stabbed her in the neck, and afterwards had her under  

her hands for more than an hour, she calling "Murder!" all the time, till at last she got  

her upon the bed, when she said she would kill her outright, so that she might not tell  

her own story. 

The jury retired for twenty minutes, and returned with a verdict of guilty. 

Proclamation being made in the usual form, Mr Baron Perryn immediately  

proceeded to pass sentence: that she should be executed on the Monday following,  

and her body afterwards dissected and anatomised, according to the statute. She left a  

guinea for the most deserving debtor in the jail, and gave the same sum to the  

executioner. 

After hanging an hour in view of a great number of spectators, one-third of  

whom were females, the body was cut down and publicly exhibited in a place built for  

the purpose in the Old Bailey.

GEORGE WALDRON, alias BARRINGTON  

The Gentleman-Pickpocket. Several times convicted, Sentenced twice to  

hard labour on the Thames, and finally, on September 27, 1798, transported  

to Botany Bay 

PERHAPS never splendid talents were more perverted than by that notorious  

character, so well known as George Barrington. We could scarcely believe that even  

in the melancholy catalogue of crimes, a man, of excellent education and  

accomplished manners, could be found descending to the degraded character of a  

pickpocket. 

George Waldron (alias Barrington) was born at a village called Maymooth, in  

the county of Kildare, Ireland. His father, Henry Waldron, was a working silversmith;  

and his mother, whose maiden name was Naith, was a mantua-maker, and  

occasionally a midwife. His parents though not affluent, had him instructed in reading  

and writing, at an early age; afterwards, through the bounty of a medical gentleman, in  

the neighbourhood, he was taught common arithmetic, the elements of geography, and  

English grammar. 

When sixteen years of age, he was noticed and patronized by a dignitary in the  

church of Ireland, who placed him at a free grammar school, and intended him for the  

university; however, he forfeited this gentleman's favour by his ill conduct at school,  

having, in a quarrel, stabbed one of his school-fellows with a pen-knife. For this  

vindictive act he was well flogged; in consequence of which he ran away from school,  

in 1771, having previously found means to steal ten or twelve guineas from his  

master, and a gold repeating watch from his master's sister. He walked all night till he  

arrived at an obscure inn at Drogheda, where he happened to meet and become  

acquainted with a company of strolling players, whose manager was one John Price,  

an abandoned character; who having been convicted of a fraud in London, was an  

involuntary exile in Ireland, until the expiration of the term for which he was  

sentenced to be transported. 

He now engaged our fugitive, who, in consequence, adopted the name of  

Barrington, as one of his performers, and who, it seems, became the hero of his  

company. While performing the character of Jaffier, in 'Venice Preserved,' he made a  

conquest of the tender Belvidera (Miss Egerton) and to the credit of Barrington it  

must be acknowledged, that he took no mean advantage of her passion, but returned it  

with perfect sincerity. 

The company being now reduced by the expenses of travelling, etc. to extreme  

indigence, Price, the manager, prevailed upon Barrington to undertake the profession  

of a pickpocket, which business be commenced in the summer of the year 1771,  

having then renounced the stage. He soon after lost his faithful Miss Egerton, who  

was drowned, in the eighteenth year of her age, in crossing the river Boyne, through  

the culpable negligence of a ferryman. 

He then commenced what is called a gentleman pickpocket, by affecting the  

airs and importance of a man of fashion; but was so much alarmed at the detection  

and conviction of his preceptor Price (who was sentenced to transportation for seven  

years) that he hastened to Dublin, where he practised his pilfering art during dark  

evenings. 

At one of the races in the county of Carlow, he was detected picking the  

pocket of Lord B. but on restoring the property, this nobleman declined any  

prosecution, and Barrington accordingly left Ireland, and for the first time appeared in  

England in 1773. On his first visit to Ranelagh with a party, he left his friends, and  

picked the pockets of the Duke of L. and Sir W. of a considerable sum; and also took  

from a lady a watch, with all which he got off undiscovered and rejoined his friends. 

In 1775, he visited the most celebrated watering places, particularly Brighton,  

and being supposed a gentleman of fortune and family, was noticed by persons of the  

first distinction. On his return to London, he formed a connexion with one Lowe, and  

became a more daring pickpocket. He went to court on the queen's birthday, as a  

clergyman, and not only picked several pockets, but found means to deprive a  

nobleman of his diamond order, and retired from the place without suspicion. It is said  

that this booty was disposed of to a Dutch Jew. Count Orlow, the Russian minister,  

being in one of the boxes of Drury-lane playhouse, was robbed of a gold snuff-box,  

set with diamonds, estimated to be worth an immense sum; and one of the count's  

attendants suspecting Barrington, seized him, and found the snuff-box in his  

possession. He was examined by Sir John Fielding, but the count, being in a foreign  

country, was influenced by motives of delicacy to decline a prosecution. 

Being soon after in the House of Lords, when an appeal of an interesting  

nature was to come on, a Mr. G. recognized his person, and applying to the deputy  

usher of the black rod, he was disgracefully turned out. He now threatened Mr. G.  

with revenge, upon which a warrant was granted to bind him over to keep the peace;  

and as he could find no surety, he was obliged to go to Tothill-fields prison-bridewell,  

where he remained some time. 

On being released, he returned to his old profession, and was about three  

months after convicted of picking the pocket of Mrs. Dudman, at Drury-lane Theatre,  

and was sentenced to three years hard labour on the Thames. 

Hitherto our pickpocket hero had a faithful confederate in the execution of his  

plans of robbery. This helpmate was a Miss West, of nearly equal notoriety as a  

sharping courtezan. Barrington being now safely confined on board the hulk at  

Woolwich, his associate and friend Miss West, was compelled to plan and execute  

alone: not that she found herself at any mighty loss; but the forcible impression made  

on her feelings by the loss of so near a favourite, oppressed her spirits, and rendered  

dormant, for a short time, that inherent vigour for active life, which she had hitherto  

constantly displayed. To soothe the gloomy hours of captivity as much as possible,  

she constantly sent Mr. Barrington two guineas per week, and paid him personal visits  

as often as opportunity would permit. 

In one of these excursions she fell into the company of David Brown Dignum,  

another convict of notoriety, and who having plenty of cash, was selected as a proper  

object for the display of this lady's talents; and she actually perpetrated the deed in the  

midst of the seat of punishment, and congratulated herself not a little on the brilliancy  

of her success, But Barrington, who always strongly supported the common maxim,  

'that there is honesty among thieves' compelled her to restore the plunder; though  

much against her inclination. 

This audacious woman was, in all, tried seven times at the Old Bailey; four of  

which she was acquitted, and found guilty the other three. The last public offence she  

committed, was on the 14th of February, 1777, when she robbed Gilbert Affleck, Esq.  

of a watch, chain, and seals, value 8L., and was detected in endeavouring to hand it to  

an associate, disguised with a black patch over his eyes. She was found guilty by the  

jury, and, sentenced to three years imprisonment in Newgate. About the expiration of  

her time, she canght the gaol distemper; and died in a fortnight after her discharge had  

taken place, thus yielding up her last breath, in perfect conformity with the infamous  

tenor of her life. 

After sustaining something less than a twelvemonth's punishment, Barrington  

was again set at liberty, in consequence of his good behaviour, through the  

interference of Messrs. Erskine and Duncan Campbell, the superintendants of the  

convicts. A few days after his release, he went to St. Sepulchre's church, when Dr.  

Milne was to preach a charity sermon, for the benefit of the Society for the Recovery  

of Persons Apparently Drowned. William Payne, a constable, saw him put his hand  

into a lady's pocket in the south aisle, and presently after followed him out of the  

church, and took him into custody near the end of Cock-lane, upon Snow-hill. Having  

taken the prisoner to St. Sepulchre's watch-house, and found a gold watch, and some  

other articles, in his possession, Payne returned to the church, and spoke to the lady  

whom he had seen the prisoner attempt to rob; she informed him she had lost nothing,  

for expecting the church to be much crowded, she had taken the precaution of  

emptying her pockets before she left her house. Upon Payne's return to the  

watchhouse, a gentleman advised that the prisoner might be more strictly searched.  

He was desired to take off his hat, and raising his left arm, he cautiously removed his  

hat from his head, when a metal watch dropped upon the floor. He was now obliged to  

pull off the greatest part of his clothes. He wore three pair of breeches, in one of the  

pockets of which was found a purse, containing thirteen guineas, and a bank-note for  

10L. made payable to himself. 

In consequence of an advertisement inserted the next day in the newspapers,  

Mrs. Ironmonger came to Payne's house, and described the watch she had lost; and it  

proved to be that which had been concealed in Barrington's hair, and dropped on the  

floor when he took off his hat. She attended the examination of the prisoner, and  

having sworn that the watch produced by Payne was her property, was bound over to  

prosecute. Upon his trial, Barrington made a long, an artful, and a plausible defence.  

He said, that upon leaving the church, he perceived the watch mentioned in the  

indictment lying upon the ground, and took it up, intending to advertise it the next  

day; that be was followed to Snow-hill by Payne and another constable, who  

apprehended him, and had, in all probability seen him take up the watch. "I reflected  

(said he) that how innocently soever I might have obtained the article in question, yet  

it might cause some censure; and no one would wonder, considering the unhappy  

predicament I stood in, [alluding to his former conviction] that I should conceal it as  

much as possible." The jury having pronounced the prisoner guilty, he addressed the  

court, earnestly supplicating that he might be permitted to enter into his Majesty's  

service, and promising to discharge his trust with fidelity and attention; or if he could  

not be indulged in that request, he wished that his sentence might be banishment for  

life from his Majesty's dominions. 

The court informed him, that by an application to the throne, he might obtain a  

mitigation of his sentence, if his case, was attended by such circumstances of  

extenuation as would justify him in humbly petitioning to be considered as an object  

of the royal favour. He requested that the money and bank-note might be returned.  

Hereupon the court observed, that, in consequence of his conviction, the property  

found on him when be was apprehended, became vested in the hands of the sheriffs of  

the city of London, who had discretionary power either to comply with, or reject his  

request. 

He was again sentenced to labour on the Thames, for the space of five years,  

on Tuesday the 5th of April, 1778. About the middle of this year, he was accordingly  

removed to the hulks at Woolwich, where having attracted the notice of a gentleman,  

who exerted his influence in his favour, he again procured his release, on condition of  

his leaving England; to this Barrington gladly consented, and was generously supplied  

with money by this gentleman. He now went to Dublin, where he was soon  

apprehended for picking the pocket of an Irish nobleman of his gold watch and  

money, at the theatre, but was acquitted for want of evidence. 

Here, however, was his first display of elocution; for having received a serious  

admonition from the judge, he addressed the court with considerable animation, and  

enlarged with great ingenuity, upon what he termed the force of prejudice, insinuating  

that calumny had followed him from England to Ireland. 

On his acquittal, however, he deemed it most prudent to leave Dublin; he  

therefore visited Edinburgh, where being suspected, he was obliged to decamp. He  

now returned to London, and braving danger, frequented the theatres, opera-house,  

pantheon, etc. but was at length taken into custody. Having been acquitted for want of  

evidence for the charge brought against him, he was unexpectedly detained for having  

returned to England in violation of the condition on which his Majesty was pleased to  

grant him a remission of his punishment, and was accordingly confined in Newgate,  

during the remainder of the time that he was originally to have served on the river  

Thames. 

On the expiration of his captivity, he returned to his former practices, but with  

greater caution. Barrington was detected, in St. Paul's cathedral, picking the pocket of  

Mrs. Montague, of two guineas and seven shillings: he was taken to the Crown, in St.  

Paul's Church-yard; where, asking leave of the constable that had him in custody, to  

go into the yard, he got over the wall into Paternoster-row, and effected an escape. 

Soon afterwards he got into company with John Brown, Esq. of Brentford, and  

while he was in conversation with him, picked his pocket of forty guineas, a gold  

watch, and seals; with this booty he made shift to live till he was apprehended for  

robbing Elizabeth Ironmonger. 

He was at length apprehended for picking the pocket of Mr. Le Mesurier, at  

Drury-lane play-house, but effected his escape from the constable; and while the  

lawyers were outlawing him, and the constables endeavouring to take him, he evaded  

detection by travelling in various disguises and characters through the northern  

counties of the kingdom; he visited the great towns as a quack doctor, clergyman,  

rider, etc. but was at last apprehended in Newcastle upon Tyne, and removed to  

London by a writ of Habeas Corpus. 

He now employed counsel, and had the outlawry against him reversed. He was  

then tried for robbing Mr. Le Mesurier, and acquitted for the want of a material  

witness. Even this narrow escape did not intimidate this daring character: he had the  

effrontery to proceed from prison once more to his native country, Ireland. He soon,  

however, found Dublin by no means so rich a harvest as London, but he did not quit  

the former until the officers of justice were again at his heels. 

It is now high time to come to the crime for which he was transported; but in  

so doing, we must, for want of room, pass over his many nimble tricks, and hair- 

breadth escapes. He was at length indicted for picking the pocket of Henry Hare  

Townsend, Esq., of a gold watch. The fact was fully proved; but in order to give our  

readers a specimen of his abilities in pleading, we shall insert the outline of the speech  

he made in his defence: 

'May it please your Lordship, and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, To favour me  

with your attention for a little time. The situation of every person who has the  

misfortune to stand here is extremely distressing and awkward; mine is so in a  

peculiar degree: if I am totally silent, it may be considered perhaps as a proof of guilt,  

and if I presume to offer those arguments which present themselves to my mind, in  

my defence, they may not, perhaps, be favoured with that attention which they might  

deserve; yet I by no means distrust the candour and benevolence of the jury, and  

therefore I beg leave to proceed to state the circumstances of the case as they occur to  

me, not doubting but they will meet with some degree of credit, notwithstanding the  

various reports to my prejudice. 

'It appears that Mr. Townsend being at the races at Barnet, was robbed of his  

watch; and that he turned to me, saying, "Your name is Barrington, and you have  

taken my watch." I told him he was right as to my name, but he accused me unjustly:  

however I would go anywhere with him; I was removed from thence to a stand, from  

whence the races were viewed; it consisted of two booths, and they were separated  

from each other with only a railing elbow high; and it is a great misfortune to me,  

gentlemen of the jury, that you were not able to observe the situation of those booths;  

for if you had, you would have found it nearly impossible that some circumstances  

which have come from the witnesses could be true; I was close to the railing that  

separated the two booths, and some person said, "Here is a watch!" This watch Mr.  

Townsend claimed, and said it was his. I was removed from thence to the Angel at  

Edmonton, where the examination took place, and I am very sorry to be under the  

necessity of observing that a very material difference has taken place in the  

depositions delivered that day before the magistrates in various respects. A witness,  

the coachman, positively declared that he did not see this watch in my hand, that he  

did not see me take it from my pocket, that he did not see it drop from the person, but  

that he saw it on the ground, and he might have gone so far as to say he saw it fall; I  

took the liberty of asking him one question, Whether he had seen this watch in my  

hand, or whether he had seen it fall from me? He declared he did not. I then asked  

him, whether he could take upon himself to swear, from the situation he stood in at  

the adjoining booth, that this watch might not have dropped from some other person.  

He declared he could not observe any such thing. Gentlemen, with respect to the  

evidence of Kendrick, he made the same declaration then. Mr. Townsend has brought  

me here, under the charge of having committed felony; he has told you, gentlemen of  

the jury, that he lost a watch out of his pocket, and that pocket is a waistcoat pocket;  

that he was in a very extraordinary situation; that he was on the race ground, where  

certainly the greatest decorum is not always observed; and he was also in a situation  

which exposed him more to the pressure he complained of, than any other person; for  

instead of his horse being in the possession of his jockey or groom, he attended it  

himself; and I must beg leave to observe, gentlemen of the jury, that it is a custom  

where people bet money at races, to wish to see the horse immediately after the heat is  

over; so that the pressure which Mr. Townsend had, or what he thought he had from  

me, could not appear very extraordinary; and I am under the necessity of saying, his  

fancy has rather been improved on the occasion. With respect, gentlemen, to the last  

witness that has appeared, I will say nothing on the occasion; that will rest entirely  

upon you. It was a circumstance, however, of a most extraordinary nature, that this  

person should never come forward till the present moment; and whether the  

contradictions and strange accounts she has given of herself, are such as to entitle her  

to any credit, particularly in a situation where the life or liberty of another is at stake;  

where much pains have been taken to defame, some pains may be surely allowed to  

abate that defamation. Gentlemen, that it has been the hard lot of some unhappy  

persons, to have been convicted of crimes they did really not commit, less through  

evidence than ill-natured report, is doubtless certain: and doubtless there are many  

respectable persons now in court, fully convinced of the truth of that observation.  

Such times, it is to be hoped, are past; I dread not such a conviction in my own  

person; I am well convinced of the noble nature of a British court of justice; the  

dignified and benign principles of its judges; and the liberal and candid spirit of its  

jurors. 

'Gentlemen, life is the gift of God, and liberty its greatest blessing: the power  

of disposing of both, or either, is the greatest man can enjoy. It is also advantageous,  

that, great as that power is, it cannot be better placed than in the hands of an English  

jury; for they will not exercise it like tyrants, who delight in blood, but like generous  

and brave men, who delight to spare rather than to destroy! and who, not forgetting  

they are men themselves, lean, when they can, to the side of compassion. It may be  

thought, gentlemen of the jury, that I am applying to your passions, and if I had the  

power to do it, I would not fail to employ it: the passions animate the heart; to the  

passions we are indebted for the noblest actions; and to the passions we owe our  

dearest and finest feelings; and when it is considered the mighty power you now  

possess, whatever leads to a cautious and tender discharge of it, must be thought of  

great consequence; as long as the passions conduct us on the side of benevolence, they  

are our best, our safest, and our most friendly guides. 

'Gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Townsend has deposed that he lost his watch, but  

how, I trust, is by no means clear; I trust, gentlemen, you will consider the great, the  

almost impossibility, that having had the watch in my possession for so long a time,  

time sufficient to have concealed it in a variety of places, to have conveyed it to town,  

it should still be in my possession. You have heard from Mr. Townsend that there was  

an interval, of at least half an hour between the time of losing the watch, and my being  

taken into custody: there is something, gentlemen, impossible in the circumstance;  

and, on the other hand, it has sometimes happened, that remorse, a generous remorse,  

has struck the minds of persons in such a manner, as to have induced them to  

surrender themselves into the hands of justice, rather than an innocent person should  

suffer. It is not, therefore, I suppose, improbable, that if Mr. Townsend lost his watch  

by an act of felony, the person who had the watch in his possession, feeling for the  

situation of an unhappy man, might be induced to place that watch on the ground. But  

it is by no means certain how Mr. Townsend lost his watch, whether by an act of  

felony, or whether by accident, it might have fallen into the hands of some other  

person, and that person, feeling for my unhappy situation, might have been induced to  

restore it. 

'I humbly hope that the circumstances of the case are such as may induce a  

scrupulous jury to make a favourable decision; and I am very well convinced that you  

will not be led by any other circumstances than those of the present case; either from  

reports or former misfortunes, or by the fear of my falling into similar ones. I am now  

just thirty-two years of age (shall be so next month); it is nearly half the life of man, it  

is not worth while being impatient to provide for the other half; so far as to do any  

thing unworthy. 

'Gentlemen, in the course of my life I have suffered much distress, I have felt  

something of the vicissitudes of fortune, and now from observation, I am convinced,  

upon the whole, there is no joy but what arises from the practice of virtue, and  

consists in the felicity of a tranquil mind and a benevolent heart; sources of  

consolation which the most prosperous circumstances do not always furnish, and  

which may be felt under the most indigent. 

'It will be my study, gentlemen, to possess them; nor will the heaviest  

affliction of poverty, pain, or disgrace, cause me to part with resolutions founded on  

the deepest reflection, and which will end but with life; I will perish on the pavement  

before I will deviate from them. For my own part, whatever your verdict may be, I  

trust I shall be enabled to meet it with firmness of mind; he indeed has little to fear  

from death, whose fame is tarnished, and who has endured the ceaseless abuse of  

unfeeling minds; when heaven accepts contrition, it receives into favour when it  

pardons: but man, more cruel than his Maker, pursues his offending brother with  

unrelenting severity, and marks a deviation from rectitude with a never dying infamy,  

and with unceasing suspicion and reproach, which seem to exclude him from the pale  

of virtue. 

'Gentlemen of the jury, though the thought of death may appal the rich and  

prosperous, but on the other hand the unfortunate cannot have much to fear from it;  

yet the tenderness of nature cannot be quite subdued by the utmost degree of human  

resolution, and I cannot be insensible to the woes which must be felt by an  

affectionate companion, and an infant offspring, and there is besides, a principle in  

human nature, stronger even than the fear of death, and which can hardly fall to  

operate some time or other in life; I mean the desire of good fame, under that laudable  

influence. 

'Gentlemen, if I am acquitted, I will quickly retire to some distant land, where  

my name and misfortunes will be alike unknown; where harmless manners may shield  

me from the imputation of guilt, and where prejudice will not be liable to  

misrepresentation, and I do now assure you, gentlemen of the jury, that I feel a  

cheering hope, even at this awful moment, that the rest of my life will be so  

conducted, as to make me as much an object of esteem and applause, as I am now the  

unhappy object of censure and suspicion.' 

The jury, however, instantly found him guilty. 

On Wednesday, September 22, 1798, George Barrington was sent to the bar. 

Mr. Recorder: George Barrington: the sentence of the Court upon you, is, that  

you be transported for the term of seven years, to parts beyond the seas, to such place  

as his Majesty, with the advice of his privy council, shall think fit to declare and  

appoint. 

To which Barrington replied, 

'My Lord, 

'I had a few words to say, why sentence of death should not be passed upon  

me; I had much to say, though I shall say but little on the occasion. Notwithstanding I  

have the best opinion of your lordship's candour, and have no wish or pleasure in  

casting a reflection on any person whatever; but I cannot help observing that it is the  

strange lot of some persons through life, that with the best wishes, the best  

endeavours, and the best intentions, they are not able to escape the envenomed tooth  

of calumny: whatever they say or do is so twisted and perverted from the reality, that  

they will meet with censures and misfortunes, where perhaps they were entitled to  

success and praise. The world, my lord, has given me credit for much more abilities  

than I am conscious of possessing; but the world should also consider that the greatest  

abilities may be obstructed by the mercenary nature of some unfeeling minds, as to  

render them entirely useless to the possessor. Where was the generous and powerful  

man that would come forward and say, "You have some abilities which might be of  

service to yourself and to others, but you have much to struggle with, I feel for your  

situation, and will place you in a condition to try the sincerity of your intentions; and  

as long as you act with diligence and fidelity, you shall not want for countenance and  

protection?" But, my lord, the die is cast! I am prepared to meet the sentence of the  

court, with respectful resignation, and the painful lot assigned me, I hope, with  

becoming resolution.' 

Barrington, as he had promised in his last speech, underwent his sentence with  

submission. His good conduct on his long passage to Botany-bay, had gained the  

friendship ahd confidence of his officers. He was the means of subduing a mutiny on  

board, by which he most likely saved many of his fellow-creatures from being  

massacred. 

On his arrival at Port Jackson, he was appointed superintendent of convicts at  

Paramatta; in which situation his exemplary attention to his duty testified the sincerity  

of his reformation, and rendered him a useful member of society for the remainder of  

his life.

ROBERT LADBROKE TROYT  

A Boy of Seventeen, executed before Newgate, 28th of November, 1798, for  

Forgery, his First Offence

ALTHOUGH only seventeen years old, Robert Ladbroke Troyt was found  

guilty, at the Old Bailey, of having feloniously forged, and published as true, knowing  

it to be forged, a certain draft, dated the 20th of August, for the sum of seventy-five  

pounds, payable to Sir William Blackstone, purporting to be the draft of Messrs  

Devaynes, Dawes, Noble & Co. 

On his trial this miserable boy was gaily dressed, and appeared to have no  

sense of the awful situation in which he stood, behaving with much unconcern; but at  

the place of execution he was a lamentable spectacle. He screamed in horror at the  

first sight of the apparatus of death, and during the short time allowed upon the  

scaffold for devotion he was in the greatest agony of mind. 

He suffered for his first offence. He had been for a short time clerk to a  

gentleman of eminence in the profession of the law, courted the company of his  

elders, and tasted the dissipation (which they call the pleasures) of London. To  

support such an evil course he committed the fatal deed which so soon put a stop to  

his career.

JAMES TURNBULL  

A Private Soldier, executed before Newgate, 15th of May, 1799, for robbing  

the Mint

IN the reign of King Charles II. Colonel Blood forcibly stole the crown from  

the Tower of London, and had proceeded almost out of detection before the valuable  

gem was recovered. 

James Turnbull, with equal desperate resolution, robbed the National Mint in  

the same fortress. At the Old Bailey, 25th of February, Turnbull was tried for robbing  

the Mint. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner (a private soldier in the 3rd  

Regiment of Guards), was employed, on the 20th of December previous, with orders  

for the military quartered at the Tower, to work the die in the coinage of guineas. At  

nine o'clock he pretended to go with the other men to his breakfast, but returned in a  

minute or two with a comrade named Dalton. The latter stood at the door while  

Turnbull went and clapped a pistol to the head of one Finch, an apprentice, who was  

left in care of the coining-room-together with a Mr Chambers-and demanded the key  

of the chest where the finished guineas were deposited. Mr Chambers came up to  

interfere, when the prisoner levelled the pistol at his forehead, and pushed him into a  

passage leading to another room, in which he locked both him and Finch. He then  

opened the chest and took out four bags, containing two thousand, three hundred and  

eighty guineas, and escaped with them before an alarm could be made. For a fortnight  

he eluded all search and pursuit, but was apprehended on the 5th of January, at Dover,  

endeavouring to hire a boat to carry him into France.  

The foregoing circumstances being fully substantiated by evidence, he  

acknowledged himself to be guilty of the said robbery, when called on to make his  

defence, and the jury instantly found him guilty. His counsel urged a point of law in  

arrest of judgment, which the Court deemed not of the least force, and he accordingly  

received sentence of death. He instantly replied "I have now heard my sentence, and I  

thank God for it." 

He was tried and convicted on the 25th of February, but was not executed until  

the 15th of May.

MARGARET HUGHES  

Executed at Canterbury, 4th of July, 1799, for murdering her Husband

AT the General Sessions for the city of Canterbury this woman was convicted  

of poisoning her husband, Thomas Hughes. 

Her case was, however, referred to the opinion of the twelve judges, but she  

was brought to the bar soon after, and informed that the Court had awarded her former  

sentence, and that in consequence her execution must take place the Wednesday  

following. 

She was accordingly brought a few minutes before one o'clock from West  

Gate, Canterbury, to a room in the jailer's house, whence she was conducted by a  

gallery to the temporary gallows, erected upon a platform, about ten feet from the  

ground, on the north side of the Gate, and executed, according to her sentence. 

She received the Sacrament, and joined in the devotions with the utmost  

fervency. The lever was then touched, and instantly part of the platform under her feet  

dropped, by which she descended six or eight inches. 

After remaining suspended an hour, the body was taken down, and at night  

delivered to the surgeons for dissection.

JAMES BRODIE  

A Blind Man, who was executed in 1800 for the Murder of his Boy Guide

JAMES BRODIE, a blind man, was indicted at the assizes for the county of  

Nottingham for the murder of a boy, named Robert Selby Hancock, who acted as his  

guide, on the 24th of March, 1800. 

John Robinson, a warrener, said he went into his warren on Sunday, the 24th  

of March, 1800, about two o'clock in the afternoon. He saw the prisoner, as he  

supposed, fishing in a rivulet. On approaching him he found him lying on his belly,  

upon which he called out: "Hullo! What are you doing?" The prisoner said he was a  

blind man, and had been wandering about all night, for he had lost his guide, who was  

dead; that he had stayed by him till he had taken his last gasp. The warrener went with  

two men to seek the boy, and they found him about three miles from the place where  

the blind man was, covered all over with ling, or fern, as much as would fill a cart.  

The skull was found fractured in two places, the head covered with blood and torn at  

the ear, and the shoulders and arms beaten to a jelly. 

The blind man had a stick, with which it was supposed he committed the  

murder. 

The prisoner, in his defence, said they had lost their way, and that the boy had  

got up into a tree, with his assistance, to see if there was any road near; that the boy  

fell from the tree and hurt himself very much; that just before he had tumbled over a  

log of wood; that, finding the boy was hurt, and could not stand, he covered him over  

with ling, in order to keep him from the cold; and that he stayed by him till he was  

dead. 

Not one word of this defence was admitted by the jury, who instantly found  

him guilty, and execution, in the short time allowed to murderers, followed, at which  

time this culprit of darkness was but twenty-three years of age.

RICHARD FERGUSON  

"Galloping Dick," convicted at the Lent Assizes, 1800, at Aylesbury, and  

executed for a Highway Robbery

THIS daring highwayman, for his bold riding when pursued, obtained the  

name of "Galloping Dick." He was born at a village in Herefordshire. His father was a  

gentleman's servant, and was frequently in London, Bath, and other places, with his  

master; consequently he could not bestow that strict attention to the education and  

morals of his son which his own conduct gave every proof he would otherwise have  

done. 

Young Dick gave very early proofs of that daring wicked disposition which  

afterwards rendered him so infamously noted. If any mischievous project was set on  

foot among his companions young Dick was sure to be their leader, and promoted it  

as far as lay in his power. 

Dick's father, finding him, when fifteen years of age, make little progress in  

learning, and given to such mischievous pranks, resolved to employ him under his  

own eye. The coachman being at this time in want of a stable-boy, young Dick was  

taken to fill up the vacancy. He took great delight in his new employment, and, being  

a smart and active youth, was taken much notice of in the family. As he paid  

particular attention to the horses, he soon made astonishing progress in the  

management of them. 

About a year afterwards young Dick came to London with the family. During  

their stay in town the postilion was taken ill and Dick was appointed to supply his  

place till he recovered, which was not very long. 

Dick was now stripped of his fine livery, and sent back to his station as a  

stable-boy. This his haughty spirit could not brook. Fond of dress, and being thought a  

man of con-sequence, he resolved to look out for another place. Accordingly he told  

his father his resolution, and asked his advice. His father, knowing he was well  

qualified, in respect to the management of horses, told him he would look out one for  

him. 

A circumstance happened that very afternoon which highly gratified our hero's  

pride. A lady who frequently visited the family, being in want of a postilion, asked  

Dick's master what had become of his late postilion. Being informed he was in his  

stable, and was very fit for her employ, he was sent for, and hired. 

Dick was now completely his own master, and for some time behaved to the  

satisfaction of his mistress. He was a great favourite in the family, particularly among  

the female part. He was now in his twentieth year, and though not what may be  

termed handsome, there was certainly some thing very agreeable, if not captivating, in  

his person. For some time he lived happily in this family, until his mistress discovered  

him in an improper situation with one of her female servants, when she immediately  

discharged him. Nor could any intercession afterwards prevail upon her to reinstate  

him. 

He soon afterwards got another place, in which he did not long remain. He had  

at this time got connected with some other servants of a loose character and, their  

manner of drinking, gaming and idleness suiting his disposition, he soon became one  

of them. After losing several good places, by negligence, he applied to a livery-stable  

in Piccadilly, and obtained employment. 

Dick's father now died, and left him the sum of fifty-seven pounds, which he  

had saved during the time he lived in the family. With this sum Dick started as a  

gentleman. He left his place, bought mourning, frequented the theatres, etc. One  

evening, at Drury Lane, he got seated beside a female who particularly engaged his  

attention. He took her to be a modest lady, and was very much chagrined when she  

readily granted his request to conduct her home. He resolved to leave her, but found  

his resolution fail him; and at the end of the play he conducted her home to her  

residence in St George's Fields, and stayed with her the whole night. Next morning,  

after making her a handsome present, he took his leave, with a promise of soon  

repeating his visit. He went home, but this artful courtesan had so completely  

enamoured him that he could not rest many hours without paying her another visit,  

and but for the accidental visit of some companions he would have returned  

immediately. With them he reluctantly spent the day, and in the evening flew again on  

the impatient wings of desire to his dear Nancy. 

She thought him to be a person of considerable property, from the specimen  

she had of his generosity, and received him with every mark of endearment in her  

power. Indeed she was as complete a mistress of the art of wheedling as perhaps any  

female of the present day. At the time Richard Ferguson became acquainted with her  

she was the first favourite of several noted highwaymen and housebreakers, who, in  

turn, all had their favoured hours. While they could supply cash to indulge her in  

every species of luxury and extravagance she would artfully declare no other man on  

earth shared her affections with them; but when their money was once expended, cold  

treatment, or perhaps worse, compelled them to hazard their lives for the purpose of  

again enjoying those favours which any reasonable thinking man would have spurned. 

Unfortunately for himself, Ferguson became as complete a dupe as ever she  

had ensnared. What money he possessed, what he could obtain by borrowing or  

otherwise, was all lavished on this insatiable female, and he was, after all, in danger of  

being discarded. Not able to bear the thought of entirely parting with his dear Nancy,  

he went to an inn in Piccadilly, offered himself as a postilion, and was accepted.  

Whenever he could obtain a little money he fled with impatience to his fair Dulcinea  

and squandered it away in the same thoughtless manner. 

As he drove post-chaises on the different roads round the metropolis he  

frequently saw his rivals on the road gaily mounted and dressed. One day, while  

driving a gentleman on the North Road, the chaise was stopped by the noted  

Abershaw and another, with crepe over their faces. Abershaw stood by the driver till  

the other went up to the chaise and robbed the gentleman. The wind being very high  

blew the crepe off his face, and gave Ferguson a full view of him. They stared at each  

other, but, before a word could pass, some company came up, and the two  

highwaymen galloped off. 

At this period Ferguson was under the frowns of his mistress, for want of  

money. He and Abershaw knew each other perfectly, having often met together at  

Nancy's. Abershaw was very uneasy at the discovery, which he communicated to his  

companion. A consultation was immediately held, and they resolved to wait at an inn  

on the road for the return of Ferguson, and bribe him, to prevent a discovery. They  

accordingly went to the inn, and when Ferguson came back, and stopped to water his  

horses, the waiter was ordered to send him in. After some conversation Dick accepted  

the present offered him, and agreed to meet them that night, to partake of a good  

supper. 

With this fresh supply of cash he fled to his Nancy. But she was otherwise  

engaged, and did not expect him so soon to possess sufficient for her notice (being  

now acquainted with his situation in life), so she absolutely refused to admit him and  

shut the door in his face. Mad with the reception he had met with, he quitted the  

house, and resolved never to visit her more; which he strictly adhered to. 

Nettled to the soul, he was proceeding homewards when he met the  

highwayman who accompanied Abershaw, and went with him to the place of  

rendezvous in the Borough, where he was received by those assembled with every  

mark of attention. They supped sumptuously, drank wine, and spent the time in noisy  

mirth. This exactly suited Ferguson: he joined in their mirth, and, when sufficiently  

elevated, very eagerly closed with a proposition to become one of their number. He  

was, according to their forms, immediately initiated. 

When the plan of their next depredations on the public was settled, Ferguson  

was not immediately called into action, as it was suggested by one of the members  

that he could be better employed in giving information, at their rendezvous, of the  

departure of gentlemen from the inn where he lived, etc., whereby those who were  

most likely to afford a proper booty might be waylaid and robbed. This diabolical plan  

he followed successfully for some time, taking care to learn from the drivers the time  

post-chaises were ordered from other inns, etc. He shared, very often, considerable  

sums, which he quickly squandered away in gambling, drunkenness and debauchery. 

At length he lost his place, and consequently his knowledge respecting  

travellers became confined, and he was obliged himself to go on the road. As a  

highwayman he was remarkably successful. Of a daring disposition, he defied danger,  

and, from his skill in horses, took care to provide himself with a good one, whereby  

he could effect his escape. He and two others stopped two gentlemen on the Edgware  

Road, and robbed them; soon after, other three gentlemen came up, who pursued  

them, and Ferguson's two companions were taken, tried and executed. When his  

associates complimented him on his escape he triumphantly asserted that he would  

gallop a horse with any man in the kingdom. 

He now indulged himself in every excess; his amours were very numerous,  

particularly among those married women whom he could, by presents or otherwise,  

induce to listen to his brutal desires. He prevailed upon the wives of two publicans in  

the Borough to elope with him, and carried on several private intrigues with others. 

At one of the last places in which he lived he was frequently employed to  

drive post-chaises between Hounslow and London, and notwithstanding he drove  

close by his old companion, Abershaw, where he hung in irons, it had no effect in  

altering his morals. To follow him through the various exploits in which he was  

afterwards engaged would require volumes to enumerate. He was at length  

apprehended, and taken to Bow Street; thence conveyed to Aylesbury, Bucks, and  

there tried and convicted of a highway robbery in that county. 

When he found himself left for execution he seriously prepared for his  

approaching end; and when he came to the fatal tree he met his awful fate with a  

becoming resolution, inspired by the firm hopes of the pardon of all his transgressions  

through the merits of his blessed Redeemer. 

Galloping Dick took a hasty road to perdition. Happy had it been for him had  

he chosen the safe path of virtue, and run a good race.

SARAH LLOYD  

Convicted of Larceny in April, 1800, and executed in spite of Extraordinary  

Efforts to get her reprieved

THIS unfortunate woman was accused of having introduced into the house of  

her mistress a man, who robbed and afterwards set it on fire. Her case occupied much  

attention. She was generally considered as the instrument made use of by a designing  

villain, and having a most excellent character the affair excited a very strong interest.  

Being convicted of larceny only, to the value of forty shillings, at Bury Assizes, April,  

1800, and condemned, she was left for execution. A petition was immediately signed,  

most respectably and numerously, for her respite and pardon; but the Duke of  

Portland, deeming the application to arise from ill-judged humanity, sent down a  

King's Messenger to order her execution. Among the persons who interested  

themselves on this occasion was Mr Capel Lofft, who addressed the following letter  

to the editor of The Monthly Magazine, setting forth her case, and proving her an  

object of mercy:-- 

SIR,--Give me leave to caution you against an implicit credit in the accounts  

published in most of the public papers respecting the case of the unhappy Sarah  

Lloyd. Thus much only I will say at present-a most extraordinary and most affecting  

case it is. I have never heard of one more so; I have never known one in any degree so  

much so. I was on the Grand Jury which found the two bills of indictment. I was in  

court at the trial. I am happy, yet perhaps I ought not to say so, that I was not in court  

when sentence of death was pronounced upon her. I have visited her several times  

since she has been in prison, with several respectable persons, and particularly with a  

lady of very superior understanding, who, struck with her mild and ingenious  

countenance, the modesty, unhesitating clearness, simplicity and ingenuous character  

of all she says, her meek and constant fortitude and her modest resignation, has  

interested herself greatly in behalf of this young and most singularly unhappy woman.  

She was indicted for a burglarious robbery in the dwelling-house of her mistress. She  

was convicted of larceny alone, to the value of forty shillings, and under what  

circumstances, it will be proper to state more fully hereafter. The jury acquitted her of  

the burglarious part of the charge, and thereby negatived any previous knowledge on  

her part of a felonious intent of any person. The other indictment, for malicious  

house-firing, was not even tried. Unhappily, perhaps, for her that it was not. It seems  

but too certain that she will suffer death on Wednesday next; and from anything that I  

can yet learn, I should fear a numerously and respectably signed petition will not find  

its way to the King while she yet lives. I write only thus much at present; that if you  

state the supposed facts which have been so widely diffused against her, and have  

made so dreadful an impression, you may also state these remarks, which have for  

their object merely that the public would suspend their judgment till a full and correct  

statement be laid before them, as it necessarily must; and that, in the meantime, at  

least, the public will not conclude her guilty of more than that of which she solely  

stands convicted and attainted on the record-the larceny only. And as to the nature  

and degree of her guilt, even upon that they will estimate it according to the  

circumstances, when fully before them. Then perhaps they will have no cause to  

wonder that efforts have been made, as they have certainly been, with most  

persevering anxiety, to obtain a mitigation of her sentence, so far as it affects her life;  

nor that the prosecutrix, the committing magistrate, the foreman and several others of  

the grand jury, and many persons of true respectability, have concurred in these  

efforts, and, particularly, persons in whose service she had lived, and who speak of  

her temper, disposition, character and conduct in terms every way honourable. I  

remain, etc.,  

CAPEL LOFFT  

TROSTON, April 21. 

In another letter this gentleman gives an account of her person, execution, etc.,  

as follows:- 

"Respecting the case of Sarah Lloyd, what ought now further to be said, I wish  

that I felt myself capable of saying as it deserves. I have reason to think that she was  

not quite nineteen. She was rather low of stature, of a pale complexion, to which  

anxiety and near seven months' imprisonment had given a yellowish tint. Naturally  

she appears to have been fair, as when she coloured, the colour naturally diffused  

itself. Her countenance was very pleasing, of a meek and modest expression, perfectly  

characteristic of a mild and affectionate temper. She had large eyes and eyelids, a  

short and well-formed nose, an open forehead, of a grand and ingenuous character,  

and very regular and pleasing features; her hair darkish brown, and her eyebrows  

rather darker than her hair: she had an uncommon and unaffected sweetness in her  

voice and manner. She seemed to be above impatience or discontent, fear or  

ostentation, exempt from selfish emotion, but attentive with pure sympathy to those  

whom her state, and the affecting singularity of her case, and her uniformly admirable  

behaviour, interested in her behalf. 

"When asked (23rd of April, 1800), the morning on which she suffered) how  

she had slept the preceding night, she said: 'Not well the beginning, but quite well the  

latter part of the night.' She took an affectionate, but composed and even cheerful,  

leave of her fellow-prisoners, and rather gave them comfort than needed to receive it.  

It was a rainy and windy morning. She accepted of, and held over her head, an  

umbrella, which I brought with me, and without assistance, though her arms were  

confined, and steadily supported it all the way from the prison, not much less than a  

mile. What I said at the place of execution, if it had been far better said than I was  

then able to express myself under the distress I felt, would have been little in  

comparison of the effect of her appearance and behaviour on the whole assembly.  

That effect, none, who were not present, can imagine. Before this, I never attended an  

execution; but indeed it was a duty to attend this, and to give the last testimony of  

esteem to a young person whose behaviour after her sentence (I had not seen her  

before, for in court she was concealed from me by the surrounding crowd) had  

rendered her so deserving of every possible attention. Those who have been  

accustomed to such distressing observations remarked that the executioner, though  

used to his dreadful office, appeared exceedingly embarrassed, and was uncommonly  

slow in those preparations which immediately precede the fatal moment, and which,  

in such a kind of death, are a severe trial to the fortitude of the strongest and most  

exalted mind, and much the more so as they tend to destroy the sympathy resulting  

from the associated ideas of dignity in suffering; yet she dignified, by her deportment,  

every humiliating circumstance of this otherwise most degrading of deaths, and  

maintained an unaltered equanimity and recollectedness, herself assisting in putting  

back her hair and adjusting the instrument of death to her neck. 

" There was no platform, nor anything in a common degree suitable to supply  

the want of one; yet this very young and wholly uneducated woman, naturally of a  

very tender disposition, and, from her mild and amiable temper, accustomed to be  

treated as their child in the families in which she had lived, and who consequently had  

not learned fortitude from experience either of danger or hardship, and in prison the  

humanity of Mr Orridge had been parental towards her, appeared with a serenity that  

seemed more than human; and when she gave the signal, there was a recollected  

gracefulness and sublimity in her manner that struck every heart, and is above words  

or idea. I was so very near to her the whole time that, near-sighted as I am, I can fully  

depend on the certainty of my information. After she had been suspended more than a  

minute, her hands were twice evenly and gently raised, and gradually let to fall  

without the least appearance of convulsive or involuntary motion, in a manner which  

could hardly be mistaken, when interpreted, as designed to signify content and  

resignation. At all events, independently of this circumstance, which was noticed by  

many, her whole conduct evidently showed, from this temper of mind, a composed,  

and even cheerful submission to the views and will of heaven; a most unaffected  

submission entirely becoming her age, sex and situation." 

Such, however, were the exaggerations of the London journals, which ascribed  

to this woman all the crime, that it need not be wondered that no attention was paid to  

the petition. The following is an extract of one (Times, 11th of April), by which the  

reader will see quite a different representation from the above-- 

"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." 

The incendiarism and intended murder, here asserted as facts of her deep  

ingratitude and base depravity, were neither tried nor proved; and of the burglary she  

was acquitted: which acquittal must also acquit her of the other charges.

JAMES HADFIELD  

Tried for shooting at his Majesty George III. at Drury Lane Theatre, on  

Thursday, 15th of May, 1800

THE trial of James Hadfield, for high treason, came on in the Court of King's  

Bench on Thursday, the 26th of June. The indictment being read, the prisoner pleaded  

"Not guilty," and the Attorney-General addressed the jury at considerable length. 

Mr Joseph Craig was the first witness examined. He was a musician, and saw  

Hadfield at Drury Lane Theatre, with a pistol in his hand, pointing it at his Majesty. It  

was instantly fired and dropped. He helped to drag the prisoner over the rails, into the  

music-room. Mr Sheridan and the Duke of York came in. Prisoner said: "God bless  

your Royal Highness, I like you very well; you are a good fellow. This is not the  

worst that is brewing." 

Mr Wright, another witness, was in the first row next the orchestra. He heard  

the report of a pistol as his Majesty entered his box, turned round, and caught the  

prisoner by the collar. A young lady, who sat behind, immediately pointed to the  

ground, where he saw and picked up the pistol, which he produced in court. 

Mr Law, one of the counsel for the prosecution, here desired that his Royal  

Highness the Duke of York might be called; upon which the prisoner, in a paroxysm  

of enthusiasm, cried out: "God bless the Duke, I love him!" The Court, seeing his  

agitation, immediately gave directions that he should be permitted to sit down; and Mr  

Kirby, the keeper of Newgate (who all the time sat next him), told him he had the  

permission of the Court to sit down, which he did, and remained composed during the  

remainder of the trial. 

The Duke of York said he knew the prisoner, who had been one of his orderly  

men. The prisoner said he knew his own life was forfeited; he regretted the fate of his  

wife only: he would be only two days longer from his wife; the worst was not come  

yet. His Royal Highness said the prisoner appeared to be perfectly collected. After his  

Majesty had retired, his Royal Highness directed a search to be made in the King's  

box, where a hole was discovered, evidently made by the impression of a shot,  

fourteen inches from his Majesty's head. It had perforated the pillar. In searching  

below, some slugs were found; they had been recently fired off. Mr Erskine asked his  

Royal Highness if the most loyal and brave men were not usually selected to be the  

orderly men. His Royal Highness answered that the most tried and trusty men were  

appointed as orderly men. When the prisoner was asked what could have induced him  

to commit so atrocious an act, he said he was tired of life, and thought he should have  

been killed. 

The evidence for the prosecution was then closed, and Mr Erskine addressed  

the jury at considerable length. 

Major Ryan, of the 15th Light Dragoons, in which the prisoner was a private;  

Hercules M'Gill, private in the same regiment, and John Lane, of the Guards, all knew  

the prisoner, and deposed to different acts of his insanity. 

Mr Cline, surgeon; Dr Crichton, physician, and Dr Letherne, surgeon to the  

15th Regiment, as professional gentlemen gave testimony to their belief of the  

prisoner's insanity. 

Captain Wilson and Chris. Lawton, of the 15th Light Dragoons; David  

Hadfield, brother to the prisoner; Mary Gore, sister-in-law to the prisoner; Catharine  

Harrison and Elizabeth Roberts detailed different acts of insanity, particularly on the  

day previous to and on which he committed the crime for which he stood indicted. 

The prisoner was found to be insane. 

NOTE-Ravaillac, who stabbed King Henry IV. of France while in his coach  

and surrounded by his guards, was tortured to death in the following manner:- 

At the place of execution his right hand, with which he gave the fatal blow,  

was put into a furnace flaming with fire and brimstone, and there consumed. His flesh  

was pulled from his bones with red-hot pincers; boiling oil, resin and brimstone were  

poured upon the wounds, and melted lead upon his navel. To close the scene of  

horror, four horses were fastened to the four quarters of his body, which were torn  

asunder. 

His parents were banished their country, never more to return, on pain of  

immediate death; and his whole kindred, nay, all individuals bearing the name, were  

ordered to renounce it, so that the name of Ravaillac should never more be heard of in  

France.

THOMAS CHALFONT  

A Post-Office Sorter, executed before Newgate, 11th of November, 1800, for  

stealing a Bank-Note out of a Letter

THOMAS CHALFONT, aged seventeen, was indicted upon the capital  

charge, for that he, being a person employed in business relating to the Post Office,  

did feloniously steal out of a certain letter, containing three bills, a Banbury bank-bill,  

of the value of ten pounds, the property of Bernard Bedwell, John Yates, Bernard  

Bedwell, junior, and Philip Bedwell. This letter, instead of arriving on the 18th, in due  

course, was not received until the 19th, and then contained but two bills, the words  

"three" in the letter being altered to "two" and the "thirty" to "twenty." 

The bill in the indictment (the one missing) was found to have been honoured  

at a banker's, for which a Bank of England note for ten pounds was given; and this  

individual note was proved to have passed through the hands of the prisoner, who  

wrote his own name upon the back of it, after several other endorsements, and paid it  

to the clerk of the Receiver-General of the Post Office. 

The jury withdrew for nearly an hour, and on their return pronounced him  

guilty. He was executed. 

About a year before he suffered, a letter-carrier, named John Williams, was  

executed at the same fatal place for stealing a Salisbury bank-note out of a letter  

entrusted to his charge; and yet this proved no warning to Chalfont.

JAMES RILEY AND ROBERT NUTTS  

Executed before Newgate, 24th of June, 1801, for Highway Robbery

THESE men were capitally indicted for assaulting and taking from the person  

of Andrew Dennis O'Kelly, Esq., on the king's highway, on the 3rd of December, at  

Hayes, near Uxbridge, three seven-shilling pieces, one half-guinea, one half-crown  

and several shillings. 

The prosecutor swore that about eight o'clock on the evening of the 3rd of  

December, as he was going in a post-chaise to West Wycombe, he was stopped, about  

a mile on this side of Uxbridge, by three footpads. The prisoner Nutts stood at the  

horses' heads, while the other prisoner, Riley, opened the chaise door and demanded  

his money; he gave him all the loose cash he had in his pocket, as stated in the  

indictment. They then demanded his pocket-book and watch; he assured them he had  

none. The prisoner Nutts then came to the other side and searched him, and took from  

him some loose paper, which they afterwards returned. The third footpad, who was  

not taken, felt in his breeches pocket, and took from him fifty pounds in bank-notes  

and a bundle of linen that lay upon the seat of the chaise. They then made off. He  

proceeded to the next public-house, in order to get assistance, but could not procure  

any, nor at Uxbridge. As he was going on to West Wycombe, when he was about a  

mile from Uxbridge, he was overtaken by a person on horseback, who informed him  

that two of the men had been taken. He swore particularly to one of the shillings, from  

a certain mark upon it. 

This gentlemen was the nephew and heir of the once famous Colonel,  

ironically styled Count Dennis O'Kelly, the fortunate owner of Eclipse, the best racer  

of the English turf. The Count, from a mean origin, was advanced to the rank of  

Lieutenant-Colonel of the Westminster Regiment of Middlesex Militia, and at the  

time of the riots in London, in the year 1780, manoeuvered the regiment, as Major,  

before the King, in review, in St James's Park. The nephew succeeded also to the  

lieutenant-colonelcy, but was soon dismissed the service, by the sentence of a general  

court martial. 

Nibbs, the constable of Hayes, was walking on the footpath when Colonel  

O'Kelly passed by in the chaise. Seeing some men on the road make up to the chaise,  

and suspecting they intended to rob the person inside when the carriage was stopped,  

he went on to the Adam and Eve and got assistance, and he and four other persons  

pursued them into a field, and secured the two prisoners, but not till they had made a  

desperate resistance; they fired two pistols, both of which, fortunately, flashed in the  

pan. 

These desperadoes were convicted in January Sessions, but, owing to the  

King's indisposition, were, with forty more condemned culprits, reserved until the  

24th of June, when they suffered along with James M'Intosh and James Wooldridge,  

for forgery; and Joseph Roberts and William Cross, for highway robbery.

JOSEPH WALL, ESQ.  

Formerly Governor of Goree. Executed 28th of January, 1802, nearly  

Twenty Years after committing the Crime, for ordering a Soldier to be  

flogged to Death

MR WALL was descended from a good family in Ireland, and entered the  

army at an early age. He was of a severe and rather unaccommodating temper; nor  

was he much liked among the officers. 

Mr Wall was Lieutenant-Governor of Senegambia, but acted as chief, the first  

appointment being vacant. It was an office he held but a short time-not more than two  

years-during which he was accused of the wilful murder of Benjamin Armstrong, by  

ordering him to receive eight hundred lashes, on the 10th of July, 1782, of which he  

died five days afterwards. His emoluments were very considerable, as, besides his  

military appointments, he was Superintendent of Trade to the colony. 

His family were originally Roman Catholics; but of course he conformed to  

the Protestant Church, or he could not have held his commission. 

As soon as the account of the murder reached the Board of Admiralty a reward  

was offered for his apprehension; but having evaded justice, in 1784, he lived on the  

Continent, sometimes in France, sometimes in Italy-but mostly in France-under an  

assumed name, where he lived respectably, and was admitted into good company. 

He particularly kept company with the officers of his own country who served  

in the French army, and was well known at the Scottish and Irish Colleges in Paris. 

In 1797 he returned to this country, as if by a kind of fatality. He was  

frequently advised, by the friend who procured him the lodging, to leave the country  

again, and also questioned as to his motive for remaining. He never attempted,  

however, to give any, but appeared, even at the time when he was so studiously  

concealing himself, to have a distant intention of making a surrender in order to take  

his trial. It is very evident his mind was not at ease, and that he was incapable of  

making any firm resolution either one way or another. And even the manner in which  

he did give himself up showed a singular want of determination, leaving it to chance  

whether the Minister should send for him or not; for, rather than go to deliver himself  

up, he wrote to say he was ready to do so. He was allied, by marriage, to a noble  

family, and his wife visited him frequently when in his concealment at Lambeth.  

Since that time he had lived in Upper Thornhaugh Street, Bedford Square, where he  

was apprehended. It is most probable that had he not written to the Secretary of State  

the matter had been so long forgotten that he would never have been in any way  

molested. At the trial it was proved by witnesses that Armstrong was far from being  

undutiful in his behaviour. He was, however, tied to a gun-carriage, and black men,  

brought there for the purpose-not the drummers, who in the ordinary course of things  

would have had to flog this man, supposing him to have deserved flogging-were  

ordered to inflict on him the punishment ordered. Each took his turn and gave this  

unhappy sufferer twenty-five lashes until he had received the number of eight  

hundred; and the instrument with which the punishment was inflicted was not a cato'- 

nine-tails, which is the usual instrument, but a piece of rope of greater thickness, and  

which was much more severe than the cat-o'-nine-tails. The rope was exhibited in  

evidence. While this punishment was being inflicted the prisoner urged the black men  

to be severe. He said, among other things: "Cut him to the heart and to the liver."  

Armstrong applied to him for mercy, but the observation of the defendant on this  

occasion was that the sick season was coming on, which, together with the  

punishment, would do for him. After receiving a great number of lashes-that is, eight  

hundred-this poor creature was conducted to the hospital. He was in a condition in  

which it was probable his death might be the consequence. He declared, in his dying  

moments, he was punished without any trial, and without ever being so much as asked  

whether he had anything to say in his defence. 

The prisoner in his defence urged that the deceased was guilty of mutiny, that  

the punishment was not so severe as reported, but that the deceased was suffered to  

drink strong spirits when in the hospital. 

The jury, after being out of court some time, pronounced a verdict of guilty. 

The recorder then proceeded to pass sentence of death upon him: that he be  

executed the following morning, and that his body be afterwards delivered to be  

anatomised, according to the statute. 

Mr Wall seemed sensibly affected by the sentence, but he said nothing, merely  

requesting the Court would allow him a little time to prepare himself for death. 

On the 21st of January a respite was sent from Lord Pelham's office, deferring  

his execution until the 25th. On the 24th he was further respited till the 28th. During  

the time of his confinement, previous to trial, he occupied the apartment which was  

formerly the residence of Mr Ridgway, the bookseller. His wife lived with him for the  

fortnight. Although he was allowed two hours a day-from twelve to two-to walk in  

the yard, he did not once embrace this indulgence; and during his whole confinement  

he never went out of his room, except into the lobby to consult his counsel. 

He lived well, and was at times very facetious, easy in his manners, and  

pleasant in conversation; but during the night he frequently sat up in his bed and sang  

psalms, which were overheard by his fellow-prisoner. He had not many visitors. His  

only attendant was a prisoner, who was appointed for that purpose by the turnkey. 

After trial he did not return to his old apartment, but was conducted to a cell.  

He was so far favoured as not to have irons put on, but a person was employed as a  

guard to watch him during the night to prevent him doing violence to himself. His bed  

was brought to him in the cell, on which he threw himself in an agony of mind, saying  

it was his intention not to rise until they called him on the fatal morning. The sheriffs  

were particularly pointed and precise in their orders with respect to confining him to  

the usual diet of bread and water preparatory to the awful event. This order was  

scrupulously fulfilled. The prisoner, during a part of the night, slept, owing to fatigue  

and perturbation of mind. He had an affecting interview with his wife, the Hon. Mrs  

Wall, the night before his execution, from whom he was painfully separated about  

eleven o'clock. Numberless tender embraces took place. The loving wife reluctantly  

departed, overwhelmed with grief, and bathed in tears, while the unfortunate husband  

declared that he could now, with Christian fortitude, submit to his unhappy fate. In the  

morning one of the officers proceeded to bind his arms with a cord, for which he  

extended them firmly; but recollecting himself he said: "I beg your pardon a moment"  

and putting his hand in his pocket he drew out two white handkerchiefs, one of which  

he bound over his temples, so as nearly to conceal his eyes, over which he placed a  

white cap, and then put on a round hat; the other handkerchief he kept between his  

hands. He then observed: " The cord cuts me; but it's no matter." On which Dr Ford  

desired it to be loosened, for which the prisoner bowed, and thanked him. 

As the clock struck eight the door was thrown open, at which Sheriff Cox and  

his officers appeared, The Governor, approaching him, said: "I attend you, sir"; and  

the procession to the scaffold, over the debtors' door, immediately succeeded. Without  

waiting for any signal the platform dropped, and he was launched into eternity. From  

the knot of the rope turning round to the back of the neck, and his legs not being  

pulled, at his particular request, he was suspended in convulsive agony for more than  

a quarter of an hour. 

After hanging an hour his body was cut down, put into a cart, and immediately  

conveyed to a building in Cowcross Street, to be dissected. His remains were interred  

in the churchyard of St Pancras.

HENRY COCK  

Executed before Newgate, 23rd of June, 1802 for Forgery, whereby he  

swindled his Benefactor's Estate

WILLIAM STOREY, ESQ., who rented the Parsonage House at Chatham,  

was rich, and, having no children, adopted Henry Cock as a son. The return made for  

this protection was the commission of forgery, in order to rob his benefactor. Cock's  

fate is still less deserving of commiseration when we find that he had received every  

advantage from education, possessed a considerable knowledge (for his early years)  

of mankind, and was in the profession of the law, as an attorney, at Brewers Hall. 

At the early age of twenty-six he was indicted for feloniously forging, on the  

20th of April, 1802, three papers, purporting to be letters of attorney of William  

Storey, of Chatham, in the county of Kent, Esquire, to transfer several sums of money  

in the stocks of the Bank of England, and for uttering and making use of the same,  

knowing them to be forged. 

His trial came on at the Old Bailey, before Lord Ellenborough, on the 1st of  

May, 1802, and occupied the greater part of that day. 

It appeared that the prisoner was a near relation to Mr Storey, and had received  

his dividends for him, as they became due. Mr Storey died on the 14th of August,  

1801, leaving, as he thought, considerable sums in the three and four per cents. and  

seven thousand pounds in the five; memoranda to that effect having been found by his  

executors among his papers. 

When several persons to whom he had left different sums pressed for their  

legacies, Mr Jefferies, the acting executor, drew up a kind of plan for discharging  

them, in which he appropriated the sums in the different funds for the payment of  

particular legacies, setting down seven thousand pounds as in the five per cents.  

among the rest. Towards the end of November this paper was shown to, and copied  

by, the prisoner, who was consulted by, and acted in town for, the executor; which  

copy was produced in court. 

So far from informing Mr Jefferies at that time of there being no property in  

the five per cents. to answer the legacies he had set down against the seven thousand  

pounds, the prisoner sent two or three letters to persuade him not to sell it out till after  

Christmas, that they might have the benefit of the dividend. This was acceded to by  

the executors, who, having left it beyond the time for that purpose, were at length  

determined to fulfil the provisions of the will; but on applying at the bank they found,  

to their great astonishment, that the whole of the seven thousand pounds in the five  

per cents. had been sold out at different periods-the last in the month of August,  

1801-by the prisoner, under the pretended authority of a warrant of Mr Storey. 

This warrant was produced; and Mr Jefferies swore to the best of his belief,  

the signature was not the handwriting of his deceased friend. 

To prove that the prisoner had made use of this paper, and had actually by that  

means obtained the money, the transfer-books were produced, and the several clerks  

of the bank were called to prove the identity of his person. 

Mr Justice Mainwaring, Mr Alderman Price, and several other persons in an  

equally respectable line of life, spoke for the prisoner's good character. The jury,  

however, considered the fact as sufficiently proved to warrant their pronouncing a  

verdict of guilty. 

He was dressed in mourning on the day of execution; and underwent his  

dreadful fate in penitence, and with fortitude.

WILLIAM CODLIN  

Executed 27th of November, 1802, for scuttling a Ship, of which he was  

Captain

CODLIN was a native of Scarborough, and allowed to be an excellent seaman  

in the north coast trade. He was captain of the brig Adventure, nominally bound to  

Gibraltar and Leghorn, and was indicted at the Old Bailey for feloniously boring three  

holes in her bottom with a view to defraud the under-writers, on the 8th of August,  

1802, off Brighton. Codlin and Read were charged, as officers of the ship, for  

committing the fact; and Macfarlane and Easterby, as owners, for procuring it to be  

committed. 

The trial came on at the sessions-house at the Old Bailey, on Tuesday, 26th of  

October, 1802, before Sir William Scott, Lord Ellenborough and Baron Thompson. It  

commenced at nine o'clock in the morning, and did not conclude till twelve at night. 

The first witness was T. Cooper, who said he was a seaman on board the  

Adventure, originally before the mast; he was shipped in the river, the vessel then  

lying below Limehouse. Codlin was captain and Douglas was mate. The rest of the  

crew consisted of two boys, making five in all. Storrow came back and forward. There  

was part of the cargo on board, and the vessel sailed from Limehouse for Yarmouth,  

where she took in twenty-two hogsheads of tobacco, some linen, and fifteen tons of  

ballast. From thence they proceeded to Deal, having taken on board at Yarmouth an  

additional hand, named Walsh, a bricklayer's labourer. At Deal, Douglas, the mate,  

complained of rheumatism, and left them. Storrow went away, and was succeeded by  

Read. They took in another hand, named Lacy. 

The Captain said, as witness was bringing him off shore, that witness should  

take Douglas's berth; but witness said he was not capable, not knowing navigation.  

The Captain said, as long as he pleased him that was enough. They did not sail from  

Deal as soon as they might. The Captain said, at one time, he waited for letters; and at  

another, he waited for a wind. At length they sailed, five or six days before the vessel  

went down. The Captain gave strict orders to keep the boat free; witness put in four  

oars, cutting two of them to the length. Formerly they threw lumber into the boat, but  

the Captain ordered that none should be put there, and that there should be plenty of  

tholes, or pins, for the oars. He also said they should not be in the ship fortyeight  

hours longer. This was Friday. On Saturday he said that night should be the last: it  

was impossible she could carry them through the Bay of Biscay. He did not think her  

trustworthy for his life, and why should witness for his? The Captain then sent  

witness down to mix grog for himself and Read, and some of the crew. Witness was  

afterwards walking the quarter-deck; the Captain was at the helm, and called witness  

to relieve him. The Captain went below. He came up in a quarter of an hour and said  

to the witness: "Go down, and you will find an auger on the cabin-deck; take up the  

scuttle, and bore two or three holes in the run, as close down to the bottom as  

possible." The witness went down and found the auger; it was a new one, bought by  

the Captain at Deal, and was put into the handle of another auger. He bored three  

holes, close down in the run, with two augers and a spike gimlet, which he left in the  

holes. The witness came on deck and told the Captain he had bored the holes. The  

Captain asked if the water was coming in. Witness said, not much, for he had left the  

augers in the holes. The Captain said they might remain till daylight. On Sunday  

morning the cabin-boy was prevented from coming down by the Captain; before that  

he always came down and got breakfast in the cabin. 

At daybreak witness pulled out the augers and the water came in, but the  

Captain did not think it came in in sufficient quantity, and wished for the mall to  

enlarge the holes. The witness said the crowbar would do. The Captain ordered him to  

bring the crowbar and make the holes larger; he did so. The Captain was present all  

the time, and assisted to knock down the lockers, to make room. The crowbar went  

through the bottom, and the witness believed the augers did also. Mr Read was in bed,  

close by the holds; the distance might be about four yards. Mr Read turned himself  

round several times while the witness was boring the holes, but he never spoke; nor  

did the witness speak to him. The auger did not make much noise. 

When the holes were bored the witness called Read, by the Captain's order; he  

came on deck, but shortly after he went down and went to bed again. The bed was on  

the larboard side of the cabin. Read could not see the augers, but he might hear the  

water run, as the cabin-boy heard it, and the witness heard it himself, a small hole  

being left open to keep the pumps at work. Read went to bed again, but he was on  

deck when the hole was beat with the crowbar. Read was permitted to go down, but  

the boys were not. When the hole was beat through, the colours were hoisted; the boat  

was already out, and all hands in it, except the Captain and witness. Witness packed  

up his things when he was told they could not be forty-eight hours in the vessel, but  

he mentioned the matter to nobody. He packed them in a bread-bag which he emptied  

on the deck. While the holes were being bored, the Captain ordered the men aloft to  

take in sail; no one could possibly see or hear him, except witness, the Captain, and  

Read. 

They left the vessel at eight o'clock. Several boats came off on the signal. The  

people in them said they (Captain Codlin and his people) had met with a sad  

misfortune; they answered yes. One boat asked if they wanted any assistance, and  

offered to tow them on shore. The Captain said she was his while she swam, and they  

had no business with her. The Swallow revenue cutter then came up and took the brig  

in tow, fastening a hawse to the mast; the brig, which lay on her beam-ends before,  

immediately righted, and went down. Witness had no doubt that she went down in  

consequence of the holes. Read's trunk had come on board at Deal; it was sent back  

the next day. Witness helped it into the boat. It was full of linen when it came, and  

was not locked. Witness did not know what it contained when it went back. Captain  

Codlin and the whole crew went to the Ship Tavern at Brighton. Read said to a lady  

who came to see him that he had lost everything belonging to him, and that he was  

ruined. Easterby and Macfarlane came to Brighton on Tuesday; they went to the Ship  

Tavern. Easterby asked where the holes were, and of what size. There were some  

carpenter's tools on the floor, which had been brought from the vessel. Easterby asked  

if the holes were of the same size as the handle of the chisel that was among the tools;  

and, being told they were, said the witness should prepare the handle to plug the  

holes, in case the ship should come on shore, as she was then driving in. Macfarlane  

was in the room, but witness could not say whether he heard, as he spoke in a low  

voice. Easterby said Codlin was a d--d fool; he had made a stupid job of it: he should  

have done the business on the French coast, and then he might have made the shore of  

either country in the boat, in such fine weather. Macfarlane discoursed with them, but  

witness did not hear what he said. Macfarlane and Easterby ordered the Captain and  

witness to go to London together and take private lodgings, in which they should keep  

close, or they would be under sentence of death. Macfarlane took seats in the coach  

for them, and paid their passage. Read wrote on a piece of paper where witness was to  

go to in London, to Macfarlane's house. Witness received nine shillings as wages, and  

Macfarlane gave him a guinea; this was after he had described the size of the hole. He  

could not say whether the others were paid their wages. Witness came up with one of  

the bags, the Captain being stopped by a gentleman (Mr Douglas). The boy was put in  

his place at five or six in the morning. Read went with witness to the coach offices;  

Macfarlane came after, and Easterby came with the boy, who was apprentice to  

Storrow. Only one pump had been worked for a length of time in the ship, the other  

was not in order. There was a gear for the other, but the Captain did not want to find  

it. The Captain sent the boy down for his greatcoat; the boy, on his return, said the  

water was running. The Captain said it was no such thing, it was only the water in the  

run; and told the boy to go forward. He ordered witness to go down and see, but  

jogged him as he passed, and told him to say it was nothing. Witness, on coming up,  

said it was only the water in the run. Witness stayed in London two nights, and then  

went to his mother, near Saxmundham, in Suffolk. Having no money, and failing to  

get a ship, after several applications, he walked the whole way, which is eighty-eight  

miles. When he arrived, his mother told him there had been people after him, about a  

ship; and there had been handbills, offering a reward. He immediately sent for the  

constable of the place, Mr Askettle, and surrendered himself, to whom he told  

everything, desiring him to take him to London. 

John Morris, George Kennedy, Lacy, and James Walsh corroborated Cooper's  

testimony. Storrow proved the intent of the voyage, that it was to defraud the  

underwriters. The insurances were also proved. Several witnesses gave Read and  

Macfarlane a good character. 

As it appeared that Read had taken no active part in the business, and as one of  

the witnesses had intimated that he was deaf-the learned judge observing that it was  

possible he could not hear the conspirators talking, and the boring of the ship, etc.-he  

was acquitted, and the rest found guilty; but two points of law having been elucidated  

by Mr Erskine in favour of Easterby and Macfarlane, judgment was accordingly  

arrested, for the decision of the twelve judges. The prisoners heard the verdict with  

much firmness-Read, with composure; Easterby, apparently with indifference,  

looking around him; Macfarlane's features showed he was inwardly much affected,  

though he bore himself with firmness. 

Sir William Scott then pronounced sentence of death on Codlin in an  

impressive manner. Codlin retired with a firm and undaunted deportment, taking a  

respectful leave of the Court as he went out. 

Previous to his execution he freely communicated to Mr Dring all the  

circumstances of his crime. At Brighton, he said, between five and six guineas were  

given him, and he was urged to go off, being assured that if he was taken he would be  

hanged. On Saturday morning, 27th of November, 1802, he was brought out of the jail  

of Newgate to proceed to undergo his sentence at the docks at Wapping. 

He was conducted from Newgate, by Ludgate Hill and St Paul's, into  

Cheapside. A number of peace officers on horseback were at the head of the  

procession. Some officers belonging to the Court of Admiralty, with the City  

Marshals, followed next. The sheriffs were in a coach, as was also the ordinary of  

Newgate, the Rev. Dr Ford. Codlin was in a cart, with a rope fastened round his neck  

and shoulders. He sat between the executioner and his assistant. As he passed down  

Cheapside, Cornhill and Leadenhall Street, and onward through Aldgate and Ratcliff  

Highway, he continued to read the accustomed prayers with great devotion, in which  

he was joined by those who sat with him in the cart. He ascended the ladder to the  

scaffold without betraying any emotions of terror. His body, after hanging for the due  

length of time, was cut down, and carried away in a boat by his friends.

GEORGE FOSTER  

Executed at Newgate, 18th of January, 1803, for the Murder of his Wife and  

Child, by drowning them in the Paddington Canal; with a Curious Account  

of Galvanic Experiments on his Body

THE unfortunate George Foster, whose conviction, as stated by the Lord Chief  

Baron in charging the jury, was most entirely upon circumstantial evidence, was put  

upon his trial, on the horrid charge above-mentioned, at the Old Bailey, January 14,  

1803. 

The first witness was Jane Hobart, the mother of the deceased, who stated, that  

she lived in Old Boswell-court, and that for some time back, the deceased and her  

infant lived with her, but that she generally went on the Saturday nights to stay with  

the prisoner, who was her husband; that she left the witness for that purpose a little  

before four o'clock, on the evening of Saturday the 4th of December, taking her infant  

child with her; and that she never heard of her from that time until she was found  

drowned in the Paddington canal. The prisoner had four children by her daughter-the  

one above alluded to, another was dead, and two were in the workhouse at Barnet. 

Joseph Bradfield, at whose house the prisoner lodged, in North-row,  

Grosvenor-square, saw the deceased with him on the Saturday night of the 4th of  

December, and they went out together about ten o'clock on the Sunday morning. The  

prisoner returned by himself between eight and nine o'clock at night, which did not  

appear remarkable, as the deceased was not in the habit of sleeping there, except on  

the Saturday nights. This witness did not consider them to be on very good terms,  

arising, as he believed, from the deceased's wishing to live with the prisoner: she used  

to call at his lodgings once or twice in the week, besides the Saturdays, on which  

nights she always waited to get some money from him. On the Sunday following, the  

prisoner and another person went with the witness to see his mother at Highgate, and  

on their return, the prisoner asked if his wife had been at his lodgings; but which, on  

his cross-examination, he admitted might arise from his being surprised at her not  

coming as usual. 

Margaret Bradfield, wife of the last witness, corroborated his testimony, with  

the addition, that on the Wednesday she saw the child which had been found in the  

Paddington canal, and which she was positive was the same that the deceased had  

taken out with her on the Sunday morning. 

Eleanor Winter, who kept what was usually called the Spotted Dog, but which  

is now called the Westbourne Green tavern, between two and three miles from  

Paddington, along the canal, swore that she perfectly recollected the prisoner coming  

to her house on the morning of the 5th of December, with a woman and a child with  

him: they staid at her house, where they had some beefsteaks, beer, and two glasses of  

brandy, till near one o'clock.-While they were there, she observed the woman to be  

crying, and heard her say, she had been three times there to meet a man who owed her  

husband some money, and that she would come no more. This witness had seen the  

body of the woman that was found in the canal, and she was certain of its being the  

same woman, who was with the prisoner at her house, on the above morning. 

John Goff, waiter at the Mitre tavern, about two miles further on the canal,  

related, that the prisoner, with a woman and child, came to their house some time  

about two o'clock on Sunday the 5th of December: they had two quarterns of rum,  

two pints of porter, and went away about half past four. The Mitre is situated on the  

opposite side of the canal to the towing path; and when the prisoner and the woman  

went away, they turned towards London on that side of the canal, though there was no  

path-way, and it would take them at least a quarter of an hour to get to the first swing- 

bridge to cross over; there was a way to pass through a Mr. Fillingham's grounds,  

which would lead them to the Harrow-road, and which he believed to be much nearer  

than the side of the canal: but then persons going that way got over the hedge, and he  

perceived from the kitchen window where he was standing, the prisoner and the  

woman go beyond that spot. They had no clock in the house, but he had no doubt as to  

the time, from its being very near dark when they went away. On being questioned by  

one of the jury, he said, that besides thc place to which he alluded for passing through  

Mr. Fiilingham's ground, there was a gate about one hundred yards farther on, and to  

svhicb the prisoner and woman had not got over when he lost sight of them. 

Hannah Patience, the landlady of the Mitre tavern, recollected seeing the  

prisoner there on Sunday, Dec. 5, with a woman and child: they had been there a good  

while before she saw them. She served them with a quartern of rum, and they had a  

pint of beer after it. They left the Mitre about half past four, as far as she could judge  

from the closing of the evening, for they had no clock. She also recollected Sarah  

Daniels coming to buy a candle to take to her master: they were then gone, and as  

they were going out, the woman threw her gown over the child, saying, 'This is the  

last time I shall come here.' In a minute or two the prisoner came back to look for the  

child's shoe, which could not be found, and then followed the woman. This witness  

took no particular notice of them, but thought she had seen them at her house two or  

three times before. 

Sarah Daniels, aged nine years, was examined by the court as to her  

knowledge of the sanctity and solemnity of an oath, and being satisfied with her  

answers, she was sworn, and said, that she met a man following a woman with a child,  

walking by the canal, as she was going from Mr. Filiingham's to the Mitre; and, from  

the circumstance of its being near their time of drinking tea, she was sure that it could  

not want much of five o'clock. 

Charles Weild, a shopmate of the prisoner, stated, that he met him a little after  

six o'clock, in Oxford-street, on the evening of Sunday the 5th of December, and that  

they went together to the Horse Grenadier public-house, where they continued till  

after eight. 

John Atkins, a boatman employed on the canal, said, about eight o'clock, on  

the morning of Monday, he found a child's body, under the bow of the boat, at the  

distance of a mile from the Mitre; that in consequence of some directions which he  

received from Sir Richard Ford, he dragged the canal for three days, on the last of  

which close under the window of the Mitre, he pulled up the woman's body,  

entangled in a loose bush. He had before then felt something heavy against the drag,  

at near 200 yards towards London from the house, but he could not ascertain whether  

that was the body or not. 

Sir Richard Ford produced the examination which the prisoner signed at Bow- 

street office, after being questioned as to its being the truth, and cautioned as to the  

consequences it might produce. The account which the prisoner then gave was as  

follows: 

'My wife and child came to me on Saturday se'nnight, about eight o'clock in  

the evening, and slept at my lodgings that night. The next morning, about nine or ten  

o'clock, I went out with them, and walked to the New Cut at Paddington; we went to  

the Mitre tavern, and had some rum, some porter, and some bread and cheese. Before  

that we had stopped at a publichouse near the first bridge, where we had some  

beefsteaks and some porter; after which she desired me to walk further on by the cut,  

so I went with her. I left her directly I came out of the Mitre tavern, which was about  

three o'clock, and made the best of my way to Whetstone, in order to go to Barnet, to  

see two of my children, who are in the workhouse there. I went by the bye lanes, and  

was about an hour and a half walking from the Mitre to Whetstone. When I got there,  

I found it so dark that I would not go on to Barnet, but came home that night. I have  

not seen my wife nor child since; I have not enquired after them, but I meant to have  

done so to-morrow evening, at Mrs. Hobart's.-I came home from Whetstone that  

evening between seven and eight o'clock; I saw no person in going to Whetstone; nor  

did I stop any where, at any publichouse, or elsewhere, except the Green Dragon, at  

Highgate, where I had a glass of rum. My wife had a black gown on, and a black  

bonnet; the child had a straw bonnet, and white bedgown. My wife was a little in  

liquor.  

(Signed) 'GEORGE FOSTER.  

'Witness, Richard Ford,  

December 27, 1802.' 

'Prisoner says, before he left the Mitre Tavern, on the said Sunday his wife  

asked the mistress of the inn whether she could have a bed there that night, which the  

prisoner afterwards repeated; that she asked half a crown for one, which the prisoner  

and his wife thought too much, and the latter said she would go home to her mother.' 

The latter part of this was positively contradicted by the landlady, not a single  

word about a bed having passed between her and the deceased. 

W. Garner, a shopmate of the prisoner, called upon him at the Brown Bear, in  

Bow-street, after he was taken into custody; to whom the prisoner said, he was as  

innocent of the charge as the child unborn; and that if any one would come forward to  

say, or swear, that he was at such a place on that night, he should be cleared  

immediately. The witness understood him to refer to the Green Dragon, at Highgate. 

James Bushwell, a coachmaker, declared, that the prisoner was one of the most  

diligent men he had ever employed; and, from his having so very good an opinion of  

him, on hearing he was in custody, he went himself to see if he could render him any  

service; that upon his making that offer, the prisoner replied, that if it was not too  

much trouble, he would thank him to go to the Green Dragon, at Highgate, and  

enquire if a man was not there on the Sunday evening, who had a glass of rum, and  

asked after Mrs. Young: with which he complied; but, as the rules of evidence would  

not admit of Mr. Bushwell's giving the answer, Elizabeth Southall, who keeps the  

Green Dragon, was called, who said she perfectly recollected such a circumstance, but  

she could not exactly say what Sunday it was; and, besides, the man who did so  

enquire, had a woman with an infant in her arms with him, and to whom the man  

turned round and said, That is Bradfield's mother. 

The prisoner made no other defence than contradicting some parts of the  

evidence of the waitcr at the Mitre. 

George Hodgson, Esq., coroner of the county, and before whom an inquest on  

these bodies had been taken, said there was not the least mark of violence upon either  

the woman or the child; of course, the report of the latter's arm being broken was  

false. 

From being acquainted with the place, he was examined particularly as to the  

way through Mr. Fillingham's grounds and which he affirmed to be far the nearest  

way to town. He could not undertake to say what the actual distance from the Mitre to  

Whetstone was, but he was sure it could not be less, even through the lanes and over  

the fields, than seven or eight miles, and about the same distance from Whetstone to  

town. 

Four witnesses were called to the prisoner's character, who all agreed in his  

being an industrious and humane man. 

The Chief Baron, in summing up to the jury, said, that this was a case which  

almost entirely depended upon circumstances, but in some cases that might be best  

evidence, as it was certainly the most difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate; they,  

however, would deliberately judge how far they brought the charge home to the  

prisoner, so as not to leave a doubt on their minds before they pronounced him guilty.  

His lordship noticed some inconsistencies in the written paper which the prisoner had  

signed, observing, that in one part of the story the prisoner was contradicted by  

several witnesses; and that it was scarcely to be presumed that the prisoner could walk  

such a distance (from the Mitre to Whetstone) in so short a time. There were other  

traits of the story which were also extremely dubious. The learned judge then went  

through the whole of the evidence, remarking thereon as he proceeded; and the jury,  

after some consultation, pronounced a verdict of guilty. 

This was no sooner done, than the Recorder proceeded to pass sentence upon  

the prisoner; which was, that he be hanged by the neck, next Monday morning, until  

he be dead, and that then his body be delivered to be anatomized, according to the law  

in that case made and provided. 

This unfortunate malefactor was executed pursuant to his sentence, January  

18, 1803. At three minutes after eight he appeared on the platform before the debtor's  

door in the Old Bailey, and after passing a short time in prayer with Dr. Ford, the  

ordinary of Newgate, the cap was pulled over his eyes, when the stage falling from  

under him, he was launched into eternity. 

When he ascended the platform his air was dejected in the extreme; and the  

sorrow manifested in his countenance depicted the inward workings of a heart  

conscious of the heinous crime be had committed, and the justness of his sentence. 

From the time of his condemnation to the moment of his dissolution, he had  

scarcely taken the smallest nourishment; which, operating with a tortured conscience,  

had so enfeebled him, that he was obliged to be supported from the prison to the  

gallows, being wholly incapable of ascending the staircase with out assistance.  

Previous to his decease, he fully confessed his having perpetrated the horrible crime  

for which he suffered: confessed that he had unhappily conceived a most inveterate  

hatred for his wife, that nothing could conquer, and determined to rid himself and the  

world of a being he loathed: acknowledged also, that he had taken her twice before to  

the Paddington canal, with the wicked intent of drowning her, but that his resolution  

had failed him, and she had returned unhurt; and even at the awful moment of his  

confession, and the assurance of his approaching dissolution, he seemed to regret  

more the loss of his infant, than the destruction of the woman he had sworn to cherish  

and protect. He was questioned, as far as decency would permit, if jealousy had  

worked him to the horrid act; but be made no reply, except saying, that 'he ought to  

die'; and dropped into a settled and fixed melancholy, which accompanied him to his  

last moments. He was a decent looking young man, and wore a brown great coat,  

buttoned over a red waistcoat, the same in which be was tried. 

He died very easy; and, after hanging the usual time, his body was cut down  

and conveyed to a house not far distant, where it was subjected to the galvanic process  

by Professor Aldini, under the inspection of Mr Keate, Mr Carpue and several other  

professional gentlemen. M. Aldini, who is the nephew of the discoverer of this most  

interesting science, showed the eminent and superior powers of galvanism to be far  

beyond any other stimulant in nature. On the first application of the process to the  

face, the jaws of the deceased criminal began to quiver, and the adjoining muscles  

were horribly contorted, and one eye was actually opened. In the subsequent part of  

the process the right hand was raised and clenched, and the legs and thighs were set in  

motion. Mr Pass, the beadle of the Surgeons' Company, who was officially present  

during this experiment, was so alarmed that he died of fright soon after his return  

home. 

Some of the uninformed bystanders thought that the wretched man was on the  

eve of being restored to life. This, however, was impossible, as several of his friends,  

who were under the scaffold, had violently pulled his legs, in order to put a more  

speedy termination to his sufferings. The experiment, in fact, was of a better use and  

tendency. Its object was to show the excitability of the human frame when this animal  

electricity was duly applied. In cases of drowning or suffocation it promised to be of  

the utmost use, by reviving the action of the lungs, and thereby rekindling the expiring  

spark of vitality. In cases of apoplexy, or disorders of the head, it offered also most  

encouraging prospects for the benefit of mankind. 

The professor, we understand, had made use of galvanism also in several cases  

of insanity, and with complete success. It was the opinion of the first medical men that  

this discovery, if rightly managed and duly prosecuted, could not fail to be of great,  

and perhaps as yet unforeseen, utility. 

NOTE:-- An experiment was made on a convict named Patrick Redmond, who  

was hanged for a street robbery, on the 24th of February, 1767, in order to bring him  

to life. It appeared that the sufferer had hung twenty-eight minutes when the mob  

rescued the body and carried it to an appointed place, where a surgeon was in  

attendance to try the experiment bronchotomy, which is an incision in the windpipe,  

and which in less than six hours produced the desired effect. A collection was made  

for the poor fellow, and interest made to obtain his pardon, for it will be remembered  

that the law says the condemned shall hang until he be dead; consequently men who,  

like Redmond, recovered, were liable to be again hanged up until they were dead.

COLONEL EDWARD MARCUS DESPARD, JOHN  

FRANCIS, JOHN WOOD, THOMAS BROUGHTON,  

JAMES SEDGWICK WRATTON, ARTHUR GRAHAM  

AND JOHN MACNAMARA  

Executed in Horsemonger Lane, Southwark, 21st of February, 1803, for  

High Treason

LORD ELLENBOROUGH, in passing sentence, said: "Such disclosures have  

been made as to prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the objects of your  

atrocious, abominable and traitorous conspiracy were to overthrow the government,  

and to seize upon and destroy the sacred person of our august and revered Sovereign,  

and the illustrious branches of his Royal house." 

If such were the objects aimed at by these men, as the noble and learned judge  

declared to have been the case, it was certainly the most vain and impotent attempt  

ever engendered in the distracted brain of an enthusiast. Without arms, or any  

probable means, a few dozen men, the very dregs of society, led on by a disappointed  

and disaffected chief, were to overturn a mighty empire; nor does it appear that any  

man of their insignificant band of conspirators-Colonel Despard alone excepted-was  

above the level of the plebeian race. Yet a small party of this description, seduced to  

disloyalty by a contemptible leader, brooding over their vain attempts at a mean  

public-house in St George's Fields, alarmed the nation. 

The members of this rebellious gang were Edward Marcus Despard, a colonel  

in the army, aged fifty; John Francis, a private soldier, aged twenty-three; John Wood,  

a private soldier, aged thirty-six; Thomas Broughton, a carpenter, aged twenty-six;  

James Sedgwick Wratton, a shoemaker, aged thirty-five; John Macnamara, a  

carpenter, aged fifty; and Arthur Graham, a slater, aged fifty-three. 

Still more shocking to relate, all of them were married men, leaving numerous  

offspring to bewail their fathers' fate and their own loss. There were others of the gang  

tried and acquitted, and some pardoned. 

Colonel Despard, the ill-starred leader of these misguided men, was descended  

from a very ancient and respectable family in Queen's County, in Ireland. He was the  

youngest of six brothers, all of whom, except the eldest, had served their country  

either in the army or navy. 

He so well discharged his duty as a colonel that he was appointed  

superintendent of his Majesty's affairs on the coast of Honduras, which office he held  

much to the advantage of the Crown of England, for he obtained from that of Spain  

some very important privileges. The clashing interests, however, of the inhabitants of  

this coast produced much discontent, and the Colonel was, by a party of them,  

accused of various misdemeanours to his Majesty's Ministers. 

He came home and demanded that his conduct should be investigated, but,  

after two years' constant attendance on all the departments of Government, was at last  

told by the Ministers that there was no charge against him worthy of investigation,  

and that his Majesty had thought proper to abolish the office of superintendent at  

Honduras, otherwise he should have been reinstated in it; but he was then, and on  

every occasion, assured that his services should not be forgotten, but in due time meet  

their reward. 

While in the Bay of Honduras the Colonel had married a native of that place. 

The Colonel, it seems, irritated by continual disappointments, began now to  

vent his indignation in an unguarded manner; consequently he became a suspicious  

character, and was for some time a prisoner in Coldbath Fields, under the Habeas  

Corpus Act, then lately passed, and which empowered Ministers to keep in  

confinement all suspected characters. 

Imprisonment increased the rancour of his heart, and on his liberation he could  

not conceal his malignancy towards Government. Thus inflamed, he endeavoured to  

inflame others, and at length brought upon himself, and those poor ignorant wretches  

who were seduced by his arguments, disgrace and death. 

On the 16th of November, 1802, in consequence of a search warrant, a  

numerous body of police officers went to the Oakley Arms, Oakley Street, Lambeth,  

where they apprehended Colonel Despard, and nearly forty labouring men and  

soldiers, many of them Irish. The next morning they were all brought up before the  

magistrates at Union Hall. The result of the examination was that Colonel Despard  

was committed to the county jail, and afterwards to Newgate; twelve of his low  

associates (six of whom were soldiers) were sent to Tothill Fields Bridewell, and  

twenty to the New Prison, Clerkenwell. Ten other persons, who had been found in a  

different room, and who appeared to have no concern whatever with the Colonel's  

party, were instantly discharged. 

The Colonel's conduct during all his examinations was invariably the same: he  

was silent during the whole. 

The Privy Council, the more effectually to try the prisoners, issued a Special  

Commission.  

The trial of Colonel Despard came on on Monday, the 7th of February, 1803. The  

indictment, which consisted of three counts, having been read, the prosecution was  

opened by the Attorney-General, who, in a very eloquent and impartial manner, laid  

before the jury the whole of the charges. 

The prisoners designed on that day to carry into effect their plan, by laying  

restraint upon the King's person and destroying him. They frequently attempted to  

seduce soldiers into the association, in which they sometimes succeeded and  

sometimes failed. Francis administered unlawful oaths to those who yielded, and,  

among others, to Blades and Windsor, giving them at the same time two or three  

copies of the oath, that they might be enabled to make proselytes in their turn.  

Windsor soon after became dissatisfied, and gave information of the conspiracy to a  

Mr Bonus, and showed him a copy of the oath. This gentleman advised him to  

continue a member of the association, that he might learn whether there were any  

persons of consequence engaged in it. 

On the Friday before the intended assassination of his Majesty a meeting took  

place, when Broughton prevailed upon two of the associates to go to the Flying Horse,  

Newington, where they would meet with a nice man, which nice man, as he styled  

him, was the prisoner Despard. 

Thomas Windsor, the chief witness, declared the manner in which he took the  

oath, and the plan of the conspiracy. Having mentioned the intended mode of  

proceeding, he said the prisoner observed that the attack should be made on the day  

his Majesty went to the Parliament House, and that his Majesty must be put to death;  

at the same time the prisoner said: "I have weighed the matter well, and my heart is  

callous." 

After the destruction of the King, the mail-coaches were to be stopped, as a  

signal to the people in the country that the revolt had taken place in town. The  

prisoner then desired witness to meet him the ensuing morning, at half-past eleven  

o'clock, on Tower Hill, and to bring with him four or five intelligent men, to consider  

upon the best manner for taking the Tower and securing the arms. Witness  

accordingly met him at the Tiger public-house, on Tower Hill, having brought with  

him two or three soldiers. The prisoner then repeated his declaration that the King  

must be put to death; and Wood promised, when the King was going to the House,  

that he would post himself as sentry over the great gun in the Park, that he would load  

it, and fire at his Majesty's coach as he passed through the Park. 

The several meetings, consultations, etc., were further proved by William  

Campbell, Charles Read, Joseph Walker, Thomas Blades, and other witnesses. 

Lord Nelson gave the prisoner a most excellent character. They were on the  

Spanish main together. They served together, and he declared him to have been a  

loyal man and a good officer. On cross-examination his lordship said he had not seen  

him since the year 1780. 

Sir Alured Clarke and Sir Evan??Nepean bore testimony of his having been a  

zealous officer. 

Mr Gurney, the other counsel for the prisoner, addressed the jury in an able  

speech; and the Solicitor-General having replied on the part of the Crown, Lord  

Ellenborough summed up. 

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but earnestly recommended him to  

mercy, on account of his former good character and the services he had rendered his  

country. On the following Wednesday, 9th of February, the trial of the other prisoners  

took place, when the same circumstances, chiefly by the same witnesses, were  

repeated, and nine (already named) out of twelve were found guilty, three of whom  

were recommended to mercy. 

Lord Ellenborough, in a style of awful solemnity highly befitting the  

melancholy but just occasion, addressed the prisoners nearly to the following purport:  

"You" (calling each prisoner separately by name) " have been separately indicted for  

conspiring against his Majesty's person, his Crown, and Government, for the purposes  

of subverting the same, and changing the government of this realm. After a long,  

patient and, I hope, just and impartial trial, you have been all of you severally  

convicted, by a most respectable jury of your country, upon the several crimes laid to  

your charge. In the course of evidence upon your trial such disclosures have been  

made as to prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the objects of your atrocious  

and traitorous conspiracy were to overthrow the Government, and to seize upon and  

destroy the sacred persons of our august and revered Sovereign, and the illustrious  

branches of his Royal house, which some of you, by the most solemn bond of your  

oath of allegiance, were pledged, and all of you, as his Majesty's subjects, were  

indispensably bound, by your duty, to defend; to overthrow that constitution, its  

established freedom and boasted usages, which have so long maintained among us  

that just and rational equality of rights, and security of property, which have been for  

so many ages the envy and admiration of the world; and to erect upon its ruins a wild  

system of anarchy and bloodshed, having for its object the subversion of all property  

and the massacre of its proprietors; the annihilation of all legitimate authority and  

established order-for such must be the import of that promise held out by the leaders  

of this atrocious conspiracy, of ample provision for the families of those heroes who  

should fall in the struggle. It has, however, pleased that Divine Providence, which has  

mercifully watched over the safety of this nation, to defeat your wicked and  

abominable purpose, by arresting your projects in their dark and dangerous progress,  

and thus averting that danger which your machinations had suspended over our heads;  

and by your timely detection, seizure and submittal to public justice, to afford time for  

the many thousands of his Majesty's innocent and loyal subjects, the intended victims  

of your atrocious and sanguinary purpose, to escape that danger which so recently  

menaced them, and which, I trust, is not yet become too formidable for utter defeat. 

"The only thing remaining for me is the painful task of pronouncing against  

you, and each of you, the awful sentence which the law denounces against your crime,  

which is, that you, and each of you" (here his Lordship named the prisoners  

severally), "be taken from the place from whence you came, and from thence you are  

to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged by the  

neck, but not until you are dead; for while you are still living your bodies are to be  

taken down, your bowels torn out and burned before your faces, your heads then cut  

off, and our bodies divided each into four quarters, and your heads and quarters to be  

then at the King's disposal; and may the Almighty God have mercy on your souls! " 

On Saturday afternoon, the 19th of February, was received the information  

that the warrant for execution, to take place on the following Monday, was made out,  

which contained a remission of part of the sentence-viz. the taking out and burning  

their bowels before their faces, and dividing their bodies. It was sent to the keeper of  

the New Jail in the Borough at six o'clock on Saturday evening, and included the  

names already given. 

The three other prisoners, Newman, Tyndall and Lander, were respited. As  

soon as the warrant for execution was received it was communicated to the unhappy  

persons by the keeper of the prison, Mr Ives, with as much tenderness and humanity  

as the awful nature of the case required. 

Colonel Despard observed that the time was short: yet he had not had, from  

the first, any strong expectation that the recommendation of the jury would be  

effectual. The mediation of Lord Nelson and a petition to the Crown were tried, but  

Colonel Despard was convinced, according to report, that they would be unavailing. 

Soon after the warrant was received all papers, and everything he possessed,  

were immediately taken from the Colonel. 

Mrs Despard was greatly affected when she first heard his fate was sealed, but  

afterwards recovered her fortitude. Mr and Mrs Despard bore up with great firmness  

at parting; and when she got into a coach, as it drove off she waved her handkerchief  

out of the window. 

At daylight on Sunday morning the drop, scaffold and gallows, on which they  

were to be executed, were erected on the top of the jail. All the Bow Street patrol, and  

many other peace officers, were on duty all day and night, and the military near  

London were drawn up close to it. 

Seven shells, or coffins, were brought into prison to receive the bodies, and  

two large bags filled with sawdust, and the block on which they were to be beheaded.  

At four o'clock the next morning, the 21st of February, the drum beat at the Horse  

Guards, as a signal for the cavalry to assemble. 

At six o'clock the Life Guards arrived, and took their station at the end of the  

different roads at the Obelisk, in St George's Fields, whilst all the officers from Bow  

Street, Queen Square, Marlborough Street, Hatton Garden, Worship Street,  

Whitechapel, Shadwell, etc., attended. There were parties of the Life Guards riding up  

and down the roads. 

At half-past six the prison bell rang-the signal for unlocking the cells. At  

seven o'clock Colonel Despard and the other prisoners were brought down from their  

cells, their irons knocked off, and their arms bound with ropes. When the Colonel  

came out he shook hands very cordially with his solicitor, and returned him many  

thanks for his kind attention. Then, observing the sledge and apparatus, he smilingly  

cried out: "Ha! ha! What nonsensical mummery is this?" 

As soon as the prisoners were placed on the hurdle, St George's bell tolled for  

some time. They were preceded by the sheriff, Sir R. Ford, the clergyman, Mr  

Winkworth, and the Roman Catholic clergyman, Mr Griffith. 

The coffins, or shells, which had been previously placed in a room under the  

scaffold, were then brought up and placed on the platform, on which the drop was  

erected; the bags of sawdust, to catch the blood when the heads were severed from the  

bodies, were placed beside them. The block was near the scaffold. There were about a  

hundred spectators on the platform, among whom were some characters of distinction.  

The greatest order was observed. At seven minutes before nine o'clock the signal was  

given, the platform dropped, and they were all launched into eternity. 

After hanging about half-an-hour, till they were quite dead, they were cut  

down. Colonel Despard was first cut down, his body placed upon sawdust, and his  

head upon a block; after his coat and waistcoat had been taken off, his head was  

severed from his body, by persons engaged on purpose to perform that ceremony. The  

executioner then took the head by the hair and, carrying it to the edge of the parapet  

on the right hand, held it up to the view of the populace, and exclaimed: "This is the  

head of a traitor, Edward Marcus Despard." The same ceremony was performed on  

the parapet at the left hand. 

His remains were now put into the shell that had been prepared for him. 

The other prisoners were then cut down, their heads severed from their bodies  

and exhibited to the populace, with the same exclamation of "This is the head of  

another traitor." The bodies were then put into their different shells and delivered to  

their friends for interment. 

The body of Colonel Despard was taken away on the 1st of March, by his  

friends, with a hearse and three mourning-coaches, and interred near the north door of  

St Paul's Cathedral. The City Marshal was present, lest there should be any  

disturbance on the occasion. 

The remains of the other six were deposited in one grave, in the vault under  

the Rev. Mr Harper's chapel, in London Road, St George's Fields.

JOHN TERRY AND JOSEPH HEALD  

Executed under Extraordinary Circumstances at York, 21st of March, 1803,  

for Murder

JOHN TERRY and his fellow-apprentice, Joseph Heald, were found guilty of  

the wilful murder of Elizabeth Smith, aged sixty-seven years, at Flaminshaw, near  

Wakefield, in Yorkshire. 

The deceased bore an excellent character, and had maintained herself by  

keeping cows and selling their produce. 

Having had the misfortune to lose two of her cows she was left nearly  

destitute, but by the humane assistance of her neighbours she was enabled to purchase  

one cow; and a son, who lived at Leeds, sent her eighteen guineas afterwards to buy  

another, but desired her not to purchase it before??fog-time. On her receiving the  

eighteen guineas it was immediately made known amongst her neighbours. 

T. Shaw and S. Linley, constables, proved the confession of Terry, which was  

that he and Heald met together on the night on which the murder was committed, and  

parted at ten o'clock to meet again at the deceased's about one o'clock. They met.  

Then he (Terry) assisted Heald in getting into a window, up one pair of stairs; he  

afterwards set up something against the house and climbed up after Heald. After  

several blows had been struck at the deceased, Heald took a razor and Terry held her  

head. In a short time he had his hand cut, and advised Heald to desist, as he had got  

enough; then he went to the door, to see if all was safe. Upon his return he found that  

Heald had got the deceased into the adjoining room, and was beating her over the  

head with the tongs; upon which he told him to desist and come away, and there  

would be no more about it. Afterwards, when Heald was brought into the room after  

Terry had made the confession, Heald said to him: "Terry, I thought thou wouldst not  

have deceived me so; thou knowest I was not with thee." To which he answered:  

"Thou knowest there is a God above Who knows all." A second time Heald asked him  

why he should deceive him, and said: "Thou hadst better lay it upon somebody else."  

To which he replied: "I will not hang an innocent man; thou knowest there were but  

us two, and God for our witness." 

The jury declared both the prisoners guilty. Accordingly the judge, in the most  

solemn manner, pronounced sentence of death upon them. 

Their execution was fixed for Monday, 21st of March. When, early in the  

morning, the Rev. Mr Brown, the ordinary, attended the prisoners in their cell, in  

order to administer the Sacrament, Terry informed him that Heald was innocent; on  

which Mr Brown stated to them the leading facts that were proved against them upon  

their trial, and referred to Terry's own confession of the manner in which they had  

perpetrated the murder. 

Terry said that he had been induced to make that confession, as he had been  

told that he should thereby save his own life; but he now declared Heald to be  

innocent, and that he would not be hanged with an innocent man. 

In consequence of this declaration the ordinary thought it his duty to inform  

the judge of this extraordinary circumstance, but his Lordship was so perfectly  

satisfied of Heald's guilt that he ordered the sentence to be put into execution. His  

Lordship, however, humanely sent his marshal, Mr Wells, to attend the prisoners, with  

a discretionary power to respite the execution should any circumstances appear to him  

respecting Heald, that would justify the measure. Mr Wells was convinced, from the  

conversation that passed, that Terry had not spoken the truth, and in consequence they  

were left to their fate. 

Again Terry, when proceeding from the cell to the drop, exclaimed aloud that  

Heald was innocent, and that they were going to hang an innocent man, and appeared  

to have worked himself up to a state of frenzy and distraction. 

On their being brought on the platform, a scene of more brutal stubbornness  

was never witnessed than that which was exhibited by this young offender; for as  

soon as he got on, he went forward to the front and exclaimed in a loud voice: "They  

are going to hang an innocent man" (meaning Heald); "he is as innocent as any of  

you!" As he uttered this he immediately made a sudden spring, in order to get down  

the ladder, which he certainly would have effected had he not been laid hold of by the  

clergyman. While they were pulling him back he again exclaimed: "It was me that  

murdered the woman. I said it was Heald, but I did so to save my own life; and would  

not any of you hang an innocent man to save your own life?" These words he  

afterwards repeated, adding: "Don't hang Heald; if you do, I shall be guilty of two  

murders." 

The clergyman then proceeded to do his duty; to which Terry paid no  

attention, but continued very clamorous, notwithstanding the entreaties of Heald not  

to deprive him of the benefit of the prayers. But Terry was not to be restrained; and it  

was with the utmost exertions of five or six men that he could be dragged to the drop  

and the rope forced over his head, during which he tore off his cap. At the moment the  

platform sank, which put an end to the life of Heald, Terry made a spring, and threw  

himself against a rail of the scaffold, got his foot upon the edge of a beam, and caught  

the corner-post with his arm, by which he supported himself; and in this dreadful  

situation he continued for about a minute, till he was forced off by the executioner,  

and launched into eternity, with his face uncovered.

CAPTAIN MACNAMARA  

Who killed Colonel Montgomery in a Duel arising out of a Quarrel about  

Dogs, and was acquitted on a Charge of Manslaughter

THE Clerk of the Arraigns said: "James Macnamara, you stand charged on the  

coroner's inquest for that you, on the 6th of April, did, with force of arms, in the  

parish of St Pancras, in the county of Middlesex, on Robert Montgomery, Esq.,  

feloniously make an assault, and a certain pistol, of the value of ten shillings, charged  

and loaded with powder and a leaden bullet, which you held in your right hand, to and  

against the body of the said Robert Montgomery, did feloniously shoot off and  

discharge, and did feloniously give, with the leaden bullet so as aforesaid discharged  

by force of the gunpowder, in the right side of the body of the said Robert  

Montgomery, one mortal wound; so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths, say that  

you, Robert Montgomery, in manner aforesaid, did feloniously kill and slay, against  

the peace of our lord the King, and against the form of the statute." 

To which the prisoner pleaded not guilty. 

Mr Knapp then said: "Gentlemen of the jury, the only question you have to try  

is, whether the gentleman who is stated in the inquisition to have lost his life lost it by  

the act of the prisoner-lost it in a rencounter which took place between them at  

Primrose Hill; and if you are of opinion that the prisoner was the cause of the death of  

the deceased, in consequence of the pistol he fired at him in that rencounter, there can  

be no question; but your verdict must find him guilty of manslaughter. Both the  

prisoner at the bar and the gentleman who has lost his life are persons most  

respectably connected. The prisoner is a gentleman of acknowledged bravery in the  

service of his country, and eminent for his good qualities. The deceased was a man  

who deserved the affection and regard of everyone who knew him." The learned  

counsel shortly stated the facts: he adverted to the origin of the quarrel between the  

prisoner and the deceased; their subsequent meeting at Primrose Hill, attended by  

their seconds and surgeon, and the fatal result of that meeting. The following  

witnesses were then called. 

William Sloane, Esq., sworn, said: "I was in Hyde Park on Wednesday, the 6th  

of April, between the hours of four and five in the afternoon. I was on horseback, in  

company with Colonel Montgomery, the deceased, and my brother, Stephen Sloane.  

There was a Newfoundland dog following Colonel Montgomery; there was another  

dog of the same species following some gentlemen who were also on horseback. We  

were in that part of Hyde Park between the bridge and the barrier when the dogs  

began fighting. Colonel Montgomery turned round and jumped off his horse to  

separate them: they were separated. I heard Colonel Montgomery call out: 'Whose  

dog is this?' Captain Macnamara answered: 'It is my dog.' Colonel Montgomery said:  

'If you do not call your dog off I shall knock him down.' Captain Macnamara replied:  

'Have you the arrogance to say you will knock my dog down?' Colonel Montgomery  

said: 'I certainly shall, if he falls on my dog.' About this time Lord Buckhurst came  

up, and some further conversation passed. I heard the word 'arrogance' made use of  

several times; Captain Macnamara made use of it. We all proceeded to Piccadilly.  

Colonel Montgomery and Captain Macnamara gave their names to each other. The  

prisoner said he was Captain Macnamara of the Royal Navy. Colonel Montgomery  

said: 'It is not my intention to quarrel with you, but if your dog falls on mine I shall  

knock him down.' I took leave of Colonel Montgomery at the top of St James's Street,  

with the intention of going home. I saw Mr Macnamara's party turning back to go  

down St James's Street: at that time I had first turned up Bond Street, but returned,  

and again joined Colonel Montgomery, who went down St James's Street with my  

brother. I afterwards saw Mr Macnamara in Jermyn Street. Colonel Montgomery had  

proceeded as far as St James's Church; they were about thirty yards from the church  

when a person, I believe Captain Barry, went from Mr Macnamara to Colonel  

Montgomery; I did not see him return again." 

Lord Buckhurst (son of Lord Westmorland) said he was not present at the first  

dispute about the dogs; but he came up afterwards, and heard Captain Macnamara say  

that the way in which Colonel Montgomery had desired him to call off his dog was  

arrogant, and not in language fit to be used by one gentleman towards another.  

Captain Macnamara said he would as soon revenge an insult as any man, and would  

fight Colonel Montgomery as well as any other man who offered him an injury.  

Captain Macnamara was shaking his stick, but it appeared to be an involuntary action,  

the consequence of his passion, and not intended as an insult. 

James Harding, vintner, Jermyn Street, said: "I was at Chalk Farm on the  

Wednesday, at half-past six. I observed the party-Captain Macnamara, Colonel  

Montgomery and three other gentlemen-ascending Primrose Hill. One of the party  

(Captain Barry) desired the servant to bring a case out of the chaise; this opened my  

eyes to the business. I stood about fifty yards distant from them. I saw Sir W. Keir and  

Captain Barry conversing together, and preparing the pistols; one was discharged to  

see whether they were in good condition. The parties separated to about six yards.  

Colonel Montgomery fired and Captain Macnamara fired; they stood face to face.  

Both fired at the same time. Colonel Montgomery fell; Captain Macnamara did not. I  

went up. Colonel Montgomery was extended on the ground, and, shortly after, Mr  

Heaviside opened his waistcoat and looked at his wound; it was on his right side. Mr  

Heaviside administered relief to him and then went to Captain Macnamara. I think he  

said he was wounded, and that he must bleed him. I assisted in carrying Colonel  

Montgomery; his eyes were fixed, and he was groaning. I saw the corpse afterwards  

on a bed in Chalk Farm." 

The prisoner was now called upon for his defence. He entreated the Court to  

indulge him with the permission of addressing the jury sitting, as he felt much pain  

and inconvenience from his wound while standing. His request was instantly  

complied with, and he delivered himself in these terms, but in so low and tremulous a  

tone as scarcely to be heard: 

"Gentlemen of the jury, I appear before you with the consolation that my  

character has already been freed, by the verdict of a Grand Jury, from the shocking  

imputation of murder, and that although the evidence against me was laid before them  

without any explanation or evidence of the sensations which brought me into my  

present unhappy situation, they made their own impression, and no charge of criminal  

homicide was found against me. I was delivered at once from the whole effect of the  

indictment. I therefore now stand before you upon the inquisition only, taken before  

the coroner, upon the view of the body, under circumstances extremely affecting to  

the minds of those who were to deliberate on the transaction, and without the  

opportunity, which the benignity of the law affords me at this moment, of repelling  

that inference of even sudden resentment against the deceased, which is the  

foundation of this inquest of manslaughter. 

"The origin of the difference, as you see it in the evidence, was insignificant:  

the heat of two persons, each defending an animal under his protection, was natural,  

and could not have led to any serious consequences. It was not the deceased's  

defending his own dog or his threatening to destroy mine that led to the fatal  

catastrophe: it was the defiance alone which most unhappily accompanied what was  

said; for words receive their interpretation from the avowed intention of the speaker.  

The offence was forced upon me by the declaration that he invited me to be offended,  

and challenged me to vindicate the offence by calling upon him for satisfaction. 'If  

you are offended with what has passed, you know where to find me.' These words,  

unfortunately repeated and reiterated, have over and over again been considered by  

criminal courts of justice as sufficient to support an indictment for a challenge. 

"Gentlemen, I am a captain in the British Navy. My character you can hear  

only from others; but to maintain any character in that station I must be respected.  

When called upon to lead others into honourable dangers I must not be supposed to be  

a man who had sought safety by submitting to what custom has taught others to  

consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming to urge anything against the laws of God,  

or of this land. I know that, in the eye of religion and reason, obedience to the law,  

though against the general feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought to be the  

rule of action; but in putting a construction upon my motives, so as to ascertain the  

quality of my actions, you will make allowance for my situation." 

Witnesses for the defence were then called. 

Lord Hood said: " I have been acquainted with the prisoner, Captain  

Macnamara, eight or ten years; I had the good fortune to promote him in the year  

1794. I always considered him a man of great moderation, and of gentlemanly  

manners. It was from the high situation in which he stood, in my opinion, as an officer  

of merit, that I promoted him." 

Lord Nelson said: "I have known Captain Macnamara nine years; he has been  

at various times under my command. During my acquaintance with him I had not only  

the highest esteem and respect for him as an officer, but I always looked upon him as  

a gentleman, who would not take an affront from any man; yet, as I stand here before  

God and my country, I never knew nor heard that he ever gave offence to man,  

woman or child during my acquaintance with him." 

Lord Hotham, Lord Minto, Sir Hyde Parker and Sir Thomas Trowbridge,  

K.B., one of the Lords of the Admiralty, also gave evidence. 

Mr Justice Heath then addressed the jury, and they retired from court for about  

twenty minutes. On their return the foreman pronounced a verdict of not guilty.

ROBERT SMITH  

Executed before Newgate for robbing Coachmen on the Highway, 8th of  

June, 1803

THIS singular robber was a Scotsman, and one of those adventurers who,  

ingenious in wickedness, devise new plans of depredation, and make the industrious,  

whose hard earnings they enjoy, the chief objects of their prey. 

The mode of robbery which this man adopted was that of employing a  

hackney-coach to drive him to some??outlet, and then robbing the coachman in the  

first lonesome place he came to, in which for some time he was too successful. This  

trade he commenced early in the month of March, 1803, when, being genteelly  

dressed, at night, about ten o'clock, he hired a hackney-coach at Charing Cross, and  

ordered the coachman to drive to St John's Farm, near the first milestone on the  

Edgware Road. When the coach got to the top of the lane leading to St John's Farm,  

Smith pulled the string and asked the coachman to let him get out, as he had passed  

the house he wanted to go to; upon which the coachman got off his box and let him  

out of the coach. Smith then asked what his fare was. When he was told five shillings  

and sixpence, he put his hand into a side-pocket, pulled out a pistol, and swore he  

would immediately shoot him if he did not deliver his money, which the coachman  

complied with. Smith then demanded his watch, which the coachman likewise  

delivered, and with which he made his escape across some fields. On Monday night  

(6th of March), about eleven o'clock, he hired another coach, and ordered the  

coachman to drive to St George's Row, on the Uxbridge Road. When the coach  

arrived at that place the man got out and, with horrid threats, demanded the  

coachman's money, at the same time presenting a very long pistol to his breast, and  

slightly wounding him in the side with a tuck-stick. The coachman delivered his  

money, amounting to two seven-shilling pieces and eight shillings and sixpence in  

silver. The robber, on parting, told the coachman that if he attempted to pursue him he  

would shoot him. But his career did not last long, for on Sunday night, the 19th of  

March, about ten o'clock, as Thomas Jones and others of the patrol were on duty in  

King's Road they met Smith, whom they questioned as to his business, etc., and he not  

being able to give a satisfactory account, one of the patrol put his hand on his breast,  

and discovered a pistol. 

On Monday morning he was brought to Bow Street, and underwent an  

examination, when the hackney-coachman who was robbed near St John's Farm  

attended; and when a pawnbroker produced a watch corresponding to one of Smith's  

pawn-tickets he positively identified the watch, and also the person to be the robber. 

T. Jones (another hackney-coachman, who was robbed in Maiden Lane)  

attended, and likewise identified a watch produced by a pawnbroker, and the person  

of the prisoner. The prisoner refused to give any name, or to give any account of  

himself. He gave the names of Gordon and Smith when he pledged the watches. 

On his re-examination, in addition to the charges before exhibited against him,  

Francis Treadwell, another driver of a hackney-coach, stated how the prisoner had  

robbed and wounded him. Also John Chilton, a porter at Mr Spode's Staffordshire  

warehouse, swore that on the evening of the 14th instant, about eight o'clock, the  

prisoner stopped and robbed him of three shillings and sixpence, near Bayswater, and  

slightly wounded him on the breast with a tuck-stick. 

The driver of another hackney-coach identified the prisoner as having robbed  

him a short time since, near Wandsworth, Surrey. On his trial the prisoner pleaded  

guilty, and the jury pronounced a verdict in accord with his own confession and the  

evidence before them. He pleaded, however, for mercy, on the ground of its being his  

first offence; but Mr Justice Heath observed that his plea could not be listened to, for  

there were five other indictments against him for similar offences, and a sixth for  

firing at a person with intent to rob. 

He was executed at the front of the debtors' door, in the Old Bailey, on the 8th  

of June, 1803.

JOHN HATFIELD  

"The Keswick Impostor." Executed at Carlisle, 3rd of September, 1803, for  

Forgery; with Particulars of the once celebrated "Beauty of Buttermere," a  

victim to his Villainy.

JOHN HATFIELD was born in 1759, at Mottram, in Longdale, Cheshire.  

Although of low descent, he possessed many natural abilities. His face was handsome,  

his person genteel, his eyes blue, and his complexion fair. 

After some domestic depredations (for, in his early days, he betrayed an  

iniquitous disposition) he quitted his family, and was employed in the capacity of an  

agent to a linen-draper in the north of England. In the course of this service he became  

acquainted with a young woman who had been nursed, and resided, at a farmer's  

house in the neighbourhood of his employer. She had been, in her earlier life, taught  

to consider the people with whom she lived as her parents. When she arrived at a  

certain age the honest farmer explained to her the secret of her birth. He told her that,  

notwithstanding she had always considered him as her parent, he was in fact only her  

guardian, and that she was the natural daughter of Lord Robert Manners, who  

intended to give her one thousand pounds, provided she married with his approbation. 

This discovery soon reached the ears of Hatfield. He immediately paid his  

respects at the farmer's, and, having represented himself as a young man of  

considerable expectations in the wholesale linen business, his visits were not  

discountenanced. The farmer, however, thought it incumbent on him to acquaint his  

lordship with a proposal made to him by Hatfield that he would marry the young  

woman if her relations were satisfied with their union, but on no other terms. This had  

so much the appearance of an honourable and prudent intention that his lordship, on  

being made acquainted with the circumstances, desired to see the lover. Hatfield  

accordingly paid his respects to the noble and unsuspecting parent, who, conceiving  

him to be what he represented himself, gave his consent at the first interview; and the  

day after the marriage took place he presented the bridegroom with a draft on his  

banker for fifteen hundred pounds. This transaction took place about the year 1771 or  

1772. 

Shortly after the receipt of his lordship's bounty Hatfield set off for London.  

He hired a small phaeton, and was perpetually at the coffee-houses in Covent Garden,  

describing himself to whatever company he chanced to meet as a near relation of the  

Rutland family, and vaunted of his parks and hounds; but he so varied in his  

descriptive figures that he acquired the appellation of "lying Hatfield." 

When the marriage portion was exhausted he retreated from London, and was  

scarcely heard of until about the year 1782, when he again visited the metropolis,  

having left his wife, with three daughters she had borne him, to depend on the  

precarious charity of her relations. Happily she did not long survive; and the author of  

her calamities, during his stay in London, soon experienced calamity himself, as he  

was arrested, and committed to the King's Bench Prison, for a debt amounting to the  

sum of one hundred and sixty pounds. 

The Duke of Rutland, on being appealed to, sent to inquire if he was the man  

who had married the natural daughter of Lord Robert Manners, and being satisfied as  

to the fact, dispatched a messenger with two hundred pounds and had him released. 

In the year 1784 or 1785 his Grace of Rutland was appointed Lord Lieutenant  

of Ireland, and shortly after his arrival in Dublin, Hatfield made his appearance in that  

city. He immediately on landing engaged a suite of apartments at an hotel in College  

Green and represented himself as being allied to the Viceroy, but that he could not  

appear at the castle until his horses, servants and carriages had arrived, which he had  

ordered, before leaving England, to be shipped at Liverpool. The easy and familiar  

manner in which he addressed the master of the hotel perfectly satisfied him that he  

had a man of consequence in his house, and matters were arranged accordingly. 

At the expiration of one month the bill at the hotel amounted to sixty pounds  

and upwards. The landlord became importunate and arrested his guest, who was  

lodged in the prison of the Marshalsea. The Duke again came to his rescue, and he  

was released. 

In 1792 he went to Scarborough, introduced himself to the acquaintance of  

several persons of distinction in that neighbourhood, and insinuated that he was, by  

the interest of the Duke of Rutland, soon to be one of the representatives in Parliament  

for the town of Scarborough. After several weeks' stay at the principal inn at  

Scarborough his imposture was detected by his inability to pay the bill. Soon after his  

arrival in London he was arrested for this debt and thrown into prison. He had been  

eight years and a half in confinement when a Miss Nation, of Devonshire, to whom he  

had become known, paid his debts, took him from prison, and gave him her hand in  

marriage. 

Soon after he was liberated he had the good fortune to prevail with some  

highly respectable merchants in Devonshire to take him into partnership with them,  

and with a clergyman to accept his drafts to a large amount. He made, upon this  

foundation, a splendid appearance in London, and, before the General Election, even  

proceeded to canvass the rotten borough of Queenborough. Suspicions in the  

meantime arose in regard to his character and the state of his fortune. He retired from  

the indignation of his creditors, and was declared a bankrupt in order to bring his  

villainy to light. Having left his second wife and two infant children behind, at  

Tiverton, he visited other places; and at length, in July, 1802, arrived at the Queen's  

Head, in Keswick, in a carriage, but without any servant, where he assumed the name  

of the Honourable Alexander Augustus Hope, brother of the Earl of Hopetoun, and  

Member for Linlithgow. Unfortunately some evil genius directed his steps to the once  

happy cottage of poor Mary, the daughter of Mr and Mrs Robinson, an old couple,  

who kept a small public-house at the side of the beautiful lake of Buttermere,  

Cumberland, and by their industry had gained a little property. She was the only  

daughter, and probably her name would never have been known to the public but for  

the account given of her by the author of A Fortnight's Ramble to the Lakes in  

Westmorland, Lancashire, and Cumberland, in which she was referred to as the  

"Beauty of Buttermere." At length the supposed Colonel Hope procured a licence, on  

the 1st of October, and they were publicly married in the church of Lorton, on  

Saturday, the 2nd of October. 

The day previous to his marriage he wrote to Mr M--, informing him that he  

was under the necessity of being absent for ten days on a journey into Scotland, and  

sent him a draft for thirty pounds, drawn on Mr Crumpt, of Liverpool, desiring him to  

cash it, and pay some small debts in Keswick with it, and send him on the balance, as  

he feared he might be short of cash on the road. This Mr M-immediately did, and sent  

him ten guineas in addition to the balance. On the Saturday, Wood, the landlord of the  

Queen's Head, returned from Lorton with the public intelligence that Colonel Hope  

had married the "Beauty of Buttermere." As it was clear, whoever he was, that he had  

acted unworthily and dishonourably, Mr M--'s suspicions were of course awakened.  

Eventually a warrant was given by Sir Frederick Vane on the clear proof of his having  

forged and received several "thanks" as the Member for Linlithgow, and he was  

committed to the care of a constable. Having, however, found means to escape, he  

took refuge for a few days on board a sloop off Ravinglass, and then went in the  

coach to Ulverston, and was afterwards seen in Chester. 

Though he was personally known in Cheshire to many of the inhabitants, yet  

this specious hypocrite had so artfully disguised himself that he quitted the town  

without any suspicion before the Bow Street officers reached that place in quest of  

him. He was then traced to??Brielth, in Brecknockshire, and was at length  

apprehended about sixteen miles from Swansea, and committed to Brecon Jail. He  

wore a cravat on which were his initials, J. H., and which he attempted to account for  

by calling himself John Henry. His trial came on on the 15th of August, 1803, at the  

assizes for Cumberland, before the Honourable Alexander Thompson, Kt. He stood  

charged upon the three following indictments:- 

1. With having assumed the name and title of the Honourable Alexander  

Augustus Hope and pretending to be a Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom  

of Great Britain and Ireland, and with having, about the month of October last, under  

such false and fictitious name and character, drawn a draft, or bill of exchange, in the  

name of Alexander Hope, upon John Crumpt, Esq., for the sum of twenty pounds,  

payable to George Wood, of Keswick, Cumberland, innkeeper, or order, at the end of  

fourteen days from the date of the said draft or bill of exchange. 

2. With making, uttering and publishing as true, a certain false, forged and  

counterfeit bill of exchange, with the name of Alexander Augustus Hope thereunto  

falsely set and subscribed, drawn upon John Crumpt, Esq., dated the 1st of October,  

1802, and payable to Nathaniel Montgomery Moore, or order, ten days after date, for  

thirty pounds sterling. 

3. With having assumed the name of Alexander Hope, and pretending to be a  

Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the  

brother of the Right Hon. Lord Hopetoun and a colonel in the army; and under such  

false and fictitious name and character, at various times in the month of October,  

1802, having forged and counterfeited the handwriting of the said Alexander Hope, in  

the superscription of certain letters or packets, in order to avoid the payment of the  

duty of postage. 

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to death. On the  

day of his execution, the 3rd of September, 1803, the sheriffs, the bailiffs, and the  

Carlisle volunteer cavalry attended at the jail door about half-past three, together with  

a post-chaise and a hearse. A prodigious crowd had assembled. It was market-day,  

and people had come from a distance of many miles out of mere curiosity. Hatfield,  

when he left the prison, wished all his fellow-prisoners to be happy. He then took  

farewell of the clergyman, who attended him to the door of the chaise, and mounted  

the steps with much steadiness and composure. The jailer and the executioner went  

along with him. The latter had been brought from Dumfries upon a retaining fee of ten  

guineas. 

It was exactly four o'clock when the procession moved from the jail, Passing  

through the Scotch Gate, in about twelve minutes it arrived at the sands. Half the  

yeomanry went before the carriage, and the other half behind. Upon their arrival on  

the ground they formed a ring round the scaffold. 

As soon as the carriage door was opened by the under-sheriff the culprit  

alighted with his two companions. A small dung-cart, boarded over, had been placed  

under the gibbet. A ladder was placed to this stage, which he instantly ascended. He  

immediately untied his neck-handkerchief and placed a bandage over his eyes. Then  

he desired the hangman, who was extremely awkward, to be as expert as possible  

about it, and that he would wave a handkerchief when he was ready. The hangman not  

having fixed the rope in its proper place, he put up his hand and turned it himself. He  

also tied his cap, took his handkerchief from his own neck, and tied it about his head  

also. Then he requested the jailer to step upon the platform and pinion his arms a little  

harder, saying that when he had lost his senses he might attempt to place them to his  

neck. The rope was completely fixed about five minutes before four o'clock; it was  

slack, and he merely said: "May the Almighty bless you all." Nor did he falter in the  

least when he tied the cap, shifted the rope, and took his handkerchief from his neck. 

Great apprehensions were entertained that it would be necessary to tie him up  

a second time. The noose slipped twice and he fell down about eighteen inches. At  

last his feet almost touched the ground, but his excessive weight, which occasioned  

this accident, speedily relieved him from pain. He expired in a moment, and without  

any struggle.

FRANCIS SMITH  

Condemned to Death on 13th of January, 1804, for the Murder of the  

supposed Hammersmith Ghost, but pardoned soon afterwards

The Hammersmith Ghost frightening a Woman

SUPERSTITION of old, in the beginning of the enlightened year 1804, was  

revived in the vicinity of Hammersmith, near London, where the inhabitants were  

possessed with an opinion that a ghost haunted their neighbourhood; but the fancied  

spectre was proved to be composed of human flesh and blood, which were  

unfortunately mangled and shed unto death by the unhappy man whose case is now  

before us. 

The wanton performer of the pretended spirit merited severe punishment, for,  

with the frogs to the mischievous boys who were pelting them with stones, the victims  

might truly have said: " It is sport to you, but death to us." Besides the poor man who  

lost his life, being mistaken for this mimic ghost, Francis Smith, who was an excise  

officer, was condemned to die for the murder. 

One poor woman in particular, when crossing near the churchyard about ten  

o'clock at night, beheld something, as she described, rise from the tombstones. The  

figure was very tall and very white. She attempted to run; but the ghost soon overtook  

her, and pressed her in his arms, when she fainted; in which situation she remained  

some hours, till discovered by some neighbours, who kindly led her home, when she  

took to her bed, from which, alas, she never rose. 

Neither man, woman nor child could pass that way, and the report was that it  

was the apparition of a man who had cut his throat in the neighbourhood a year  

before. Several lay in wait different nights for the ghost; but there were so many by- 

lanes and paths leading to Hammersmith that he was always sure of being on that  

which was unguarded and every night played off his tricks, to the terror of the  

passengers. 

Francis Smith, doubtless incensed at the unknown person who was in the habit  

of assuming this supernatural character, and thus frightening the superstitious  

inhabitants of the village, rashly determined on watching for, and shooting, the ghost;  

when, unfortunately, he shot a poor innocent man, Thomas Millwood, a bricklayer,  

who was in a white dress, the usual habiliment of his occupation. This rash act was  

judged as wilful murder by the coroner's inquest, and Smith was accordingly  

committed to jail. He took his trial at the ensuing sessions at the Old Bailey, 13th of  

January, when Mr John Locke, wine-merchant, living in Hammersmith, stated that on  

the 3rd of January, about half-past ten in the evening, he met the prisoner, who told  

him he had shot a man whom he believed to be the pretended ghost of Hammersmith.  

A rumour of a ghost walking about at night had prevailed for a considerable time. He  

went with the prisoner, in company with Mr Stowe and a watchman, up Limekiln  

Lane to Black Lion Lane, where the deceased was lying, apparently dead. 

The witness and Mr Stowe consulted together upon what was proper to be  

done, and they directly sent for the high constable. The body had no appearance of  

life; there was a shot in the left jaw. The prisoner was much agitated. The witness told  

him the consequences likely to result from his misconduct. The prisoner replied that  

he fired, but did not know the person whom he had shot; he also said that, before he  

fired, he spoke twice to the deceased, but received no answer. 

Mr Const, for the prisoner, cross-examined this witness. For five weeks  

previous to this melancholy catastrophe the ghost had been the subject of general  

conversation in Hammersmith. He had never seen it. The dress in which the ghost was  

said to appear corresponded with that worn by the deceased, being white. The  

deceased had on white trousers, down to his shoes; a white apron round him, and a  

flannel jacket on his body. The ghost sometimes appeared in white, and frequently in  

a calf's skin. 

The prisoner was so agitated when the witness met him that he could scarcely  

speak. The deceased, after the prisoner called out, continued to advance towards him,  

which augmented his fear so much that he fired. The witness described the evening as  

very dark. Black Lion Lane was very dark at all times, being between hedges; and on  

that evening it was so very obscure that a person on one side of the road could not  

distinguish an object on the other. 

The prisoner, when he first mentioned the accident, expressed to the witness  

his wish that he would take him into custody, or send for some person to do so. The  

prisoner was a man mild and humane, and of a generous temper. 

William Girdle, the watchman, in Hammersmith, after stating that he went to  

the spot with Mr Locke, described the posture in which the deceased was found. He  

was lying on his back, stretched out, and quite dead. On his crossexamination the  

witness said that he had seen the supposed ghost himself on the Thursday before,  

being the 29th of December. It was covered with a sheet or large tablecloth. He  

encountered it opposite the fourth milestone, and pursued it, but without success, as  

the spirit pulled off the sheet and ran. The alarm had been very great for six weeks or  

two months, and many people had been terribly frightened. He knew the prisoner, and  

he was nothing like a cruel man. 

Anne Millwood, sister to the deceased, said her brother was in his usual  

working dress. She had heard great talk of a ghost stalking up and down the  

neighbourhood, all in white, with horns and glass eyes, but she did not know that  

anybody had ever watched in order to discover and detect the impostor. 

For the defence the prisoner's counsel called Mrs Fullbrook, mother-in-law to  

the deceased. She said that on the Saturday evening before his death he told her that  

two ladies and a gentleman had taken fright at him, as he was coming down the  

terrace, thinking he was the ghost. He told them he was no more a ghost than any of  

them, and asked the gentleman if he wished for a punch in the head. The witness  

advised the deceased in future to put on a greatcoat, in order that he might not  

encounter any danger. 

Thomas Groom was called to prove that some supernatural being actually  

visited the town of Hammersmith. He said he was servant to Mr Burgess, a brewer,  

and that as he and a fellow-servant were going through the churchyard one night,  

something, which he did not see, caught hold of him by the throat. 

A number of witnesses were then called to the prisoner's character, which they  

described as mild and gentle in the extreme. 

The Lord Chief Baron, in his address to the jury, said that, however disgusted  

the jury might feel in their own minds with the abominable person guilty of the  

misdemeanour of terrifying the neighbourhood, still the prisoner had no right to  

construe such misdemeanour into a capital offence, or to conclude that a man dressed  

in white was a ghost. It was his own opinion, and was confirmed by those of his  

learned brethren on the bench, that if the facts stated in evidence were credible, the  

prisoner had committed murder. In this case there was a deliberate carrying of a  

loaded gun, which the prisoner concluded he was entitled to fire, but which he really  

was not; and he did fire it, with a rashness which the law did not excuse. 

The jury retired for above an hour, and returned a verdict of guilty of  

manslaughter. 

On hearing this verdict, it was stated by the Bench that such a judgment could  

not be received in this case, for it ought to be either a verdict of murder or of acquittal.  

If the jury believed the facts, there was no extenuation that could be admitted; for  

supposing that the unfortunate man was the individual really meant to have been shot,  

the prisoner would have been guilty of murder. Even with respect to civil processes: if  

an officer of justice used a deadly weapon it was murder if he occasioned death by it,  

even although he had a right to apprehend the person he had so killed. 

Mr Justice Rooke said "The Court have no hesitation whatever with regard to  

the law, and therefore the verdict must be 'guilty of murder,' or 'a total acquittal from  

want of evidence.'" 

Mr Justice Lawrence said: "You have heard the opinion of the whole Court is  

settled as to the law on this point, it is therefore unnecessary for me to state mine in  

particular. Upon every point of view this case is, in the eye of the law, a murder, if it  

be proved by the facts. Whether it has or not is for you to determine, and return your  

verdict accordingly. The law has been thus stated by Justice Foster and all the most  

eminent judges." 

The recorder said: "I perfectly agree with the learned judges who have spoken.  

Gentlemen, consider your verdict again." 

The jury then turned round and, after a short consultation, returned their  

verdict "guilty." 

The Lord Chief Baron said: "The case, gentlemen, shall be reported to his  

Majesty immediately." 

The recorder then passed sentence of death on the prisoner in the usual form;  

which was, that he should be executed on Monday next, and his body given to the  

surgeons to be dissected. 

The prisoner, who was dressed in a suit of black clothes, was then twenty-nine  

years of age, a short but well-made man, with dark hair and eyebrows; and the pallid  

hue of his countenance during the whole trial, together with the signs of contrition  

which he exhibited, commanded the sympathy of every spectator. When the dreadful  

word "guilty" was pronounced he sank into a state of stupefaction exceeding despair.  

He at last retired, supported by the servants of Mr Kirby. 

The Lord Chief Baron having told the jury, after they had given their verdict,  

that he would immediately report the case to his Majesty, was so speedy in this  

humane office that a "respite during pleasure" arrived at the Old Bailey before seven o  

clock, and on the 25th he received a pardon, on condition of being imprisoned one  

year.

ANN HURLE  

Executed before Newgate, 8th of February, 1804, for Forgery, at the Age of  

Twenty-two

ANN Hurle, only twenty-two years of age, was on Saturday, 14th of January,  

1804, capitally indicted at the Old Bailey for having forged and counterfeited, uttered  

and published, as true, in the City of London, a letter of attorney, with the name of  

Benjamin Allin thereunto subscribed, purporting to have been signed, sealed and  

delivered by a gentleman of that name, residing in Greenwich, in the county of Kent,  

a proprietor of certain annuities and stock, transferable at the Bank of England, called  

"Three per Cent. Reduced Annuities," for the purpose of transferring the sum of five  

hundred pounds of said annuities to herself, with an intent to defraud the Governor  

and Company of the Bank of England, against the statute. 

George Francillon, a stockbroker, said he was acquainted with the prisoner at  

the bar for five or six months, and recollected her applying to him on Saturday, the  

10th of December, at the Bank Coffee-House, requesting him to take out a power of  

attorney for the sale of five hundred pounds Reduced. She told the witness it was to be  

taken out of the stock of a Mr Benjamin Allin, of Greenwich, who, she said, was an  

elderly gentleman; she also said she had been brought up in his family from her  

infancy, and that her aunt had been for many years housekeeper and nurse to Mr  

Allin. The prisoner then said that this five hundred pounds stock was a gift Mr Allin  

had made to her for her great attention to him during her stay at his house. The  

witness, on hearing this, took out a power of attorney from the bank office, and  

delivered it to her that same day, when he desired her to take it to Greenwich, in order  

to get it executed. She told the witness she would have it executed that afternoon and  

return with it on the Monday morning, in order to transfer the stock into her own  

name. She accordingly brought back the deed on Monday morning, at eleven o'clock,  

executed in the name of Benjamin Allin. He then desired her to wait a few minutes till  

he went to the proper office at the bank, in order to have the power passed; and as she  

had said she was inclined to sell the stock, he told her he would inquire the price of it  

in the market and let her know. Having left the power of attorney at the bank, he  

returned in about twenty minutes afterwards, and the clerk of that office told him that  

Mr Bateman, the clerk who passed the powers, desired to see him. He accordingly  

went, in company with the prisoner, to the gentleman, who said that the signature of  

Benjamin Allin differed from that gentleman's handwriting which they had at the  

bank. The witness told Mr Bateman he did not know Mr Allin, but only Ann Hurle,  

who wished the power of attorney. She, on being questioned by Mr Bateman, said she  

had been brought up in Mr Allin's family from a child, that he was a very old man- 

nearly ninety years of age, in a very infirm state of health, and, if the handwriting  

differed, she could account for it in no other way but by his not being accustomed to  

writing, which might occasion some difference in the signature; but if it was  

necessary she said she would take out a fresh power of attorney. 

Benjamin Allin said he resided at Greenwich, and had a person of the name of  

Jane Hurle in his service, and knew Ann Hurle, her niece, but had not been much in  

her company, nor in any company whatever. On being shown the power of attorney,  

he deposed that it was not in his handwriting, and that he had not signed any paper  

since the first day of December. 

The prisoner was called on for her defence, but she made none, saying she left  

it to her counsel. No witnesses were adduced to speak in her behalf. She was much  

affected, and fainted twice during the trial. The jury, after deliberating a short time,  

returned a verdict of guilty. 

The unfortunate Ann Hurle was ordered for execution. She was brought out of  

the debtors' door in Newgate at eight o'clock. The mode of execution by the drop  

having been for the time changed to that of the common gallows, she was put into a  

cart and drawn to the place of execution, in the widest part of the Old Bailey, where  

she expiated her offences in penitence and prayer. When the halter was fixed she  

seemed inclined to speak, but her strength evidently failed, and she was incapable.  

Her appearance, upon the whole, excited emotions of compassion among the  

spectators, who at last became so clamorous that the sheriff, in a loud voice, described  

to them the impropriety of their behaviour; after which they were more silent. The cap  

was then pulled over the face of the sufferer and the cart drawn away. As it was going  

she gave a faint scream, and for two or three minutes after she was suspended she  

appeared to be in great agony, moving her hands up and down frequently.

ROBERT ASLETT  

Assistant Cashier of the Bank of England. Condemned to Death for  

embezzling Exchequer Bills to a Large Amount, entrusted to his Charge, and  

respited during his Majesty's Pleasure, 18th of November, 1804

ROBERT ASLETT had been in the employ of the Governor and Company of  

the Bank of England for about twenty-five years, and had conducted himself faithfully  

and meritoriously until he had been induced, unfortunately, to speculate in the funds;  

and, in dereliction to that duty and fidelity which he owed to his employers, had  

subtracted immense sums from the property entrusted to his care. 

In the year 1799, having gone through the necessary and regular gradations, he  

was appointed one of the cashiers. It was a part of the business of the bank to  

purchase Exchequer bills, to supply the exigencies of Government; the purchases  

were entrusted to the care of a very meritorious and excellent officer (Mr A.  

Newland), but on account of that gentleman's growing infirmities --he having been  

fifty-eight years in the service of the bank-the management was left wholly under the  

care and direction of Mr Aslett. These purchases were made of Mr Goldsmid, by  

means of Mr Templeman, the broker. It was usual to make out the bills in the name of  

the person from whom they were purchased, and then deliver them to Mr Aslett to  

examine, and he entered them in what is called the bought-book, and then gave orders  

to the cashiers to reimburse the broker. The bills were afterwards deposited in a strong  

chest kept in Mr Newland's room, and when they had increased in bulk by subsequent  

purchases they were selected by Mr Aslett, tied up in large bundles, and carried to the  

parlour-that is to say, the room in which the directors held their meetings- 

accompanied by one of the clerks with the original book of entry, when the directors  

in waiting received the envelopes and deposited them in the strong iron chest, which  

had three keys, and to which none but the directors had access; nor could they be  

brought forth until the course of payment, unless by consent of at least two of the  

directors. Therefore it was not possible for them to find their way into the hands of the  

public or the money market unless embezzled for that purpose. 

On the 26th of February, 1804, Mr Aslett, according to this practice, made up  

three envelopes of Exchequer bills, the first containing bills to the amount of one  

hundred thousand pounds; the second, two hundred thousand pounds, and the third,  

four hundred thousand pounds; making in the whole seven hundred thousand pounds.  

These were, or in fact ought to have been, carried into the parlour and signed as being  

received by two of the directors, Messrs Paget and Smith; one of these bundles- 

namely, that containing the two hundred thousand pounds' worth of bills-was  

withdrawn. The confidence which the Governor and Company placed in Mr Aslett  

had enabled him to conceal the transaction from the 26th of February to the 9th of  

April, and it was next to an impossibility that it should be discovered, as no period of  

payment had arrived; but on that day, in consequence of an application made by Mr  

Bish, the whole was discovered. 

On the 16th of March Mr Aslett went to that gentleman and requested he  

would purchase for him fifty thousand pounds' Consols., to which request no  

objection was made, provided he deposited the requisite securities. The fluctuation of  

the market at that time was six per cent., and Aslett, in order to cover any deficit,  

deposited with Mr Bish three Exchequer bills, Nos. 341, 1060, 2694, which he knew  

had been previously deposited in the bank. From some circumstances, and from his  

general knowledge of the whole of the business of the funds, Mr Bish suspected all  

was not right, and accordingly went to the bank, where an investigation took place, at  

which Mr B. Watson, one of the directors, was present. Mr Newland was sent for and  

asked whether any of the Exchequer bills could, by possibility, get into the market  

again from the bank. He answered in the negative, observing they were a dormant  

security. The same question was put to Mr Aslett, and the same answer given by him.  

It was found necessary to tell him that the bills in question, which could be proved to  

have been in the bank, had found their way into the money-market; and at the same  

time it was observed that he had made purchases, to a large amount, of stock with the  

bills. This was acknowledged by him; but he said he had done so for a friend named  

Hosier, residing at the west end of the town, and he declared they were not bank  

property, nor to be found in the bought-book. 

The directors, however, were not satisfied on this point, and he was  

immediately secured. His trial was, however, postponed till July, as it had occurred to  

those employed in the prosecution that the bills in question had been issued with an  

informality in them, not having the signature of the Auditor of the Exchequer. They  

were aware of the objections that might be taken, and as Parliament was not then  

sitting it was thought advisable to postpone the trial, lest it might create an alarm in  

the money market. The fact was no sooner known than a Bill was brought into  

Parliament for remedying those defects, and to render the bills valid. 

On Friday, the 8th of July, 1804, Mr Aslett's trial commenced. Mr Garrow, on  

the part of the prosecution, stated the facts above mentioned; but when about to call  

witnesses to give evidence, Mr Erskine insisted that the Exchequer bills, which the  

prisoner stood charged with having stolen, were not good bills till the Act of  

Parliament had made them so, and consequently that they were pieces of waste paper  

when stolen. Chief Baron Macdonald, Mr Justice Rooke and Mr Justice Lawrence  

concurred that the present indictment could not be maintained; and the jury were  

accordingly desired to acquit the prisoner. He was afterwards tried on nine other  

indictments, but the evidence being the same, Mr Garrow applied to the Court to  

detain him in custody, it being, he said, the intention of the bank directors to issue a  

civil process against him for one hundred thousand pounds and upwards, the moneys  

paid for the bills which he had converted to his own use. 

On Saturday, 17th of September, at a quarter before ten o'clock, Mr Aslett was  

again brought to the bar of the Old Bailey, before Baron Chambre and Mr Justice Le  

Blanc. The prisoner was attended by four or five gentlemen, who continued in the  

dock during the whole time of the trial. 

Three indictments were read, with two counts in each. The three indictments  

charged the prisoner with secreting and embezzling three notes, and, after  

considerable evidence had been given, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. 

Before sentence of death was pronounced he was wretchedly dejected. When  

he was asked what he had to say why judgment of death should not be passed upon  

him he answered: "Nothing; I resign myself to my fate." He never looked up the  

whole time the recorder was addressing him, and left the court under great  

perturbation of mind. A report of his case was not made to the King by the recorder  

till the 18th of November, when he was respited during his Majesty's pleasure.

RICHARD HAYWOOD  

A Violent and Hardened Sinner, who was executed along with John  

Tennant, before Newgate, 30th of April, 1805, for Robbery

THIS Richard Haywood, alias Reginald Harwood, was indicted for having  

stolen two bolsters and two pillows, valued at ten shillings, the property of Richard  

Crabtree; and for cutting, with a certain sharp instrument, Benjamin Chantry, in order  

to prevent his lawful apprehension of him for the said felony. 

Miss Jenkins, cousin to Mrs Crabtree, deposed that on Saturday evening, the  

20th of October, 1804, she and Mrs Wilson, in consequence of some suspicions which  

they had, sat watching in Mr Williamson's house, which was opposite to Mr  

Crabtree's, No. 11 Thayer Street, Manchester Square. They saw two men go into Mr  

Crabtree's house with a key. Thereupon Mrs Wilson went downstairs, and the witness  

observed her cross over and knock at Mr Crabtree's door. She saw the door open, but  

nothing else. 

Mr Williamson said that he followed Mrs Wilson, and was, when she knocked  

at Mr Crabtree's door, close to the step of it. He saw two men come out of the house;  

one ran to the left, who, he believed, made his escape; the other (the prisoner at the  

bar) made a blow at Mrs Wilson, and ran to the right. The witness cried: "Stop thief!"  

and he had not got above twenty yards before he was stopped by a gentleman. The  

prisoner fell down in the middle of the street, but got away from the gentleman. The  

witness never lost sight of him till he was stopped by several people in Marylebone  

Lane. 

Henry Holford, a merchant, in Crutched Friars, said that as he was passing  

through Thayer Street, Manchester Square, he saw the prisoner come out of the house,  

No.11, and make a violent blow at a lady. He immediately ran towards Hind Street,  

and came so close to the witness that he seized him. He struggled, and made a blow at  

the witness's head, which he avoided, and the prisoner fell. The witness saw  

something in his hand, which he afterwards understood to be an iron crow. The  

witness returned the blow, and the prisoner fell. He got up again, and turned, and  

escaped for a moment. The witness pursued him down two small streets, and kept  

sight of him till he saw Chantry at the door of his own house. The witness called out  

to him: "Stop thief!" Chantry laid hold of him immediately. The witness told Chantry  

to take care, for he had an iron crow in his hand. Chantry looked round, and a few  

moments afterwards the prisoner lifted up his hand and made a violent blow at him  

with the iron. He was then taken to the watch-house, and the iron crow was delivered  

to the officer. 

After conviction he behaved with shocking depravity. His fellow-sufferer was  

John Tennant, who had been ordered for execution along with Haywood. When the  

keeper went to warn them of their approaching execution they behaved in so  

determined and riotous a manner that it was necessary to secure them with irons to the  

floor. Haywood, who was supposed to have procured a knife from his wife when she  

was permitted to see him, rushed upon the keeper, during the altercation, and would  

have stabbed him with it if he had not left the cell. They uttered the most horrid  

imprecations; and, after declaring in cant terms that they would die game, threatened  

to murder the ordinary if he attempted to visit them. Their behaviour in other respects  

was so abandoned that the necessary attendants were deterred from further  

interference, and left them to the dreadful fate which awaited them. 

When told it was time to be conducted to the scaffold, Haywood cheerfully  

attended the summons; he first ate some bread and cheese, and drank a quantity of  

coffee. Before he departed, however, he called out in a loud voice to the prisoners,  

who were looking through the upper windows at him: "Farewell, my lads; I am just  

going off. God bless you." "We are sorry for you," replied the prisoners. "I want none  

of your pity," rejoined Haywood; "keep your snivelling till it be your own turn."  

Immediately he arrived on the scaffold, which he ran upon with great agility, with a  

loud laugh he gave the mob three cheers, introducing each with a "Hip, ho!" While the  

cord was being prepared he continued hallooing to the mob: "How are you? Well,  

here goes!" He then gave another halloo, and kicked off his shoes among the  

spectators, many of whom were deeply affected at the obduracy of his conduct. Soon  

afterwards the platform dropped.

HENRY PERFECT  

A most plausible Begging-Letter Swindler, transported to Botany Bay, in  

April, 1805

HENRY PERFECT was the son of a clergyman in Leicestershire, and had  

been a lieutenant in the 69th Regiment of Foot. He was twice married, and had had  

considerably property with each wife. Being at length found out in his impositions,  

which he carried out by means of begging letters, he was indicted on the statute of  

George II. for obtaining money under false pretences from the Earl of Clarendon. His  

trial, which occupied the whole of the day, and excited universal attention, came on at  

the Middlesex Sessions, Hicks's Hall, 27th of October, 1804. Mr Gurney, in a very  

able and eloquent address, expatiated on the enormous guilt of the prisoner, who had  

personated the various and imaginary characters of the Rev. Mr Paul, the Rev. Daniel  

Bennet, Mrs Grant, Mrs Smith, etc., and who also had had the art of varying his  

handwriting on every occasion, having kept notes in what hand every original letter  

had been written, with what kind of wafer or wax it was scaled, etc. He likewise kept  

his book of accounts, as regular as any merchant in London. When his lodgings were  

searched a book was found, in his own handwriting, giving an account of money  

received (by which it appeared that he had plundered the public to the amount of four  

hundred and eighty-eight pounds within two years), with a list of the donors' names,  

among whom were the Duchess of Beaufort, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lord  

Littleton, Lady Howard, Lady Mary Duncan, Bishops of London, Salisbury and  

Durham, Earls of Kingston and Radnor, Lord C. Spencer, Hon. Mrs Fox, etc. 

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the Court sentenced him to seven years'  

transportation. He was sent to Botany Bay in April, 1805.

ELIZABETH BARBER ALIAS DALY  

Who smoked her Pipe after murdering a Pensioner. Executed near  

Maidstone, 25th of May, 1805

ELIZABETH BARBER was born in King Street, Deptford, and she married  

an honest waterman, by whom she bore children. Barber's good conduct obtained him  

an excellent situation in the custom-house, while his wife was ruining him by her  

flagitious conduct. She was soon beyond all control. Once she stabbed a man of the  

name of Thomas Seerles, for which she was indicted, and imprisoned at Maidstone for  

twelve calendar months. This, however, proved no check to her fury, for, having  

formed an intimacy with John Dennis Daly, a poor college man, at Greenwich, she  

murdered him, on the 14th of October, 1804, by stabbing him in the breast with a  

knife, for which she was sent to Maidstone Jail. 

Ann Ward stated that she lived in the room under the prisoner's, at Greenwich;  

she heard a trampling over her head, as though of persons scuffling. This was half-an- 

hour before she heard the cry of "Murder!" and she heard Mrs Daly, the prisoner, say:  

"I'll do it-I'll do it! I will not put up with it!" About half-an-hour afterwards she heard  

the prisoner open the door and cry out: "Murder! Bloody murder! My husband has  

stabbed himself, and is dead enough. Will nobody come to my assistance?" The  

witness called the woman who lived underneath in the kitchen, and both went upstairs  

with the prisoner. When they got up, they saw Daly sitting in a chair with his head  

hanging on his left shoulder; the bosom of his shirt was open, and the wound on his  

breast was washed very clean. The prisoner was all the time smoking her pipe very  

unconcernedly, merely observing that he had stabbed himself. 

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned judge immediately  

pronounced sentence of death. She was aged fifty-three. When sentence of death was  

passed upon her, she begged her body of the judge for her children. 

Her dress on the day of execution (which took place on 25th of March, 1805,  

on Pennenden Heath) was very decent; and from the time of her quitting the prison to  

the fatal drop she never uttered a sentence. Before leaving the prison, however, she  

made an ample confession of her guilt.

WILLIAM CUBITT  

Executed in November, 1805, for stealing valuable Jewellery from the Earl  

of Mansfield

WILLIAM CUBITT was in the service of the Earl of Mansfield, and was  

convicted of stealing a gold snuff-box, set with brilliants, the property of that  

nobleman. 

Lady Mansfield appeared upon his trial, and stated that the prisoner lived in  

their service, and was chiefly employed by her as groom of the chambers. She  

discharged him by Lord Mansfield's directions, who was then at Ramsgate. Some time  

between the 26th and 30th of July she had the snuff-box in question in her care. It was  

blue enamel on gold, with a miniature of the Emperor Joseph II. on the top, set round  

with brilliants. The last time she recollected seeing it was some time in May, before  

they went to Caen Wood. She kept it in a cabinet, in the organ-room, at their house in  

Portland Place. She knew nothing of the loss of it until they received the magistrate's  

letter at Ramsgate, and then, upon a search, she found that the box had been lost. 

J. Dobree, jeweller, stated that on the 15th of August the prisoner came to his  

house and wanted to purchase a gold chain which was in the window. Having agreed  

for the price of it, he asked if he would take old gold in return. Being answered in the  

affirmative, he produced the fragments of a snuff-box, which the witness saw had  

been of curious workmanship. He called his journeyman aside and conversed with  

him for a moment on the subject, and then asked the prisoner where he had got that  

gold. He replied that he had got it from a servant. The witness, in answer, said he was  

sure it was no servant's property, and that he should not go away until he had given an  

account of it. The prisoner then snatched up the pieces of gold that lay upon the  

counter and ran out of the shop. The witness followed him, overtook, and  

apprehended him. He was immediately carried to Marlborough Street office. 

Foy and Lovatt, the two police officers belonging to Marlborough Street  

office, said that the prisoner, on his examination, told the magistrate he lived at No. 21  

Bolsover Street. They, in consequence, went to search his lodgings. They found in a  

drawer twelve brilliants, the crystal of a miniature picture, and under the fire, half- 

burned, discovered the remains of a miniature painting. 

Lord Mansfield examined the broken pieces of gold found on the prisoner, and  

declared he was convinced, from the workmanship, that they were part of the box he  

had lost. The brilliants were the same sort as those round the miniature, but he could  

not swear that they were the same. He was positive, however, to the remains of the  

miniature. The face was destroyed; but the breast, with the Austrian orders, remained  

visible. He added that the box was a gift from the late Emperor Joseph II. to his great- 

uncle, on leaving Vienna. He did not know the exact value, but he presumed  

somewhere about two hundred guineas. The jury found the prisoner guilty. 

He and two other malefactors were executed, pursuant to their sentence, on  

Wednesday morning, 13th of November, 1805, at half-past eight o'clock, at the usual  

place in the Old Bailey.

THOMAS PICTON, ESQ.  

Late Governor of Trinidad. Convicted 24th of February, 1806, of applying  

Torture, in order to extort Confession from a Girl

Louisa Calderon undergoing the Torture

THE indictment on which Governor Picton was brought to trial charged him  

with inflicting torture, in order to extort confession of Louisa Calderon, one of his  

Majesty's subjects in the island of Trinidad, in the West Indies. 

Mr Garrow addressed the jury, and said that although he should acquit himself  

zealously of the obligation imposed upon him to bring to light, and condign  

punishment, an offence so flagrant as that charged upon the defendant, yet much more  

happy would he be to find that there was no ground upon which the charge could be  

supported, and that the British character was not stained by the adoption of so cruel a  

measure as that alleged in this prosecution. 

"The island of Trinidad," added Mr Garrow, "surrendered to that illustrious  

character, Sir Ralph Abercromby, in the year 1797; and he entered into a stipulation,  

by which he conceded to the inhabitants the continuance of their laws, and appointed  

a new governor, until his Majesty's pleasure should be known, or, in other words, until  

the King of England, in his paternal character, should extend to this new acquisition to  

his empire all the sacred privileges of the laws of England. I have the authority of the  

defendant himself for stating that the system of jurisprudence adopted under the  

Spanish monarch, for his colonial establishments, was benignant, and adapted to the  

protection of the subject, previous to the surrender of this island to the British arms. 

"In December, 1801, when this crime was perpetrated, Louisa Calderon was of  

the tender age of ten or eleven years. At that early period she had been induced to live  

with a person of the name of Pedro Ruiz, as his mistress; and although it appears to us  

very singular that she should sustain such a situation at that time of life, yet it is a fact  

that, in this climate, women often become mothers at twelve years old, and are in a  

state of concubinage if, from their condition, they could not form a more honourable  

connection. While she lived with Ruiz she was engaged in an intrigue with Carlos  

Gonzalez, the pretended friend of the former, who robbed him of a quantity of dollars.  

Gonzalez was apprehended, and she also, as some suspicion fell upon her in  

consequence of the affair. She was taken before the justice, as we, in our language,  

should denominate him, and, in his presence, she denied having any concern in the  

business. The magistrate felt that his powers were at an end; and whether the object of  

her denial were to protect herself, or her friend, is not material to the question before  

you. The extent of his authority being thus limited, this officer of justice resorted to  

General Picton; and I have to produce, in the handwriting of the defendant, this  

bloody sentence: 'Inflict the Torture upon Louisa Calderon.' You will believe there  

was no delay in proceeding to its execution. The girl was informed in the jail that if  

she did not confess she would be subjected to the torture; that under the process she  

might probably lose her limbs or her life, but the calamity would be on her own head,  

for if she would confess she would not be required to endure it. While her mind was  

in the state of agitation this notice produced, her fears were aggravated by the  

introduction of two or three negresses into her prison, who were to suffer under the  

same experiment as a means of extorting confession of witchcraft. In this situation of  

alarm and horror the young woman persisted in her innocence: the punishment was  

inflicted, improperly called picketing, which is a military punishment, perfectly  

distinct. This is not picketing, but the torture. It is true the soldier exposed to this does  

stand with his foot on a picket, or sharp piece of wood, but, in mercy to him, a means  

of reposing on the rottindus major, or interior of the arm, is afforded. This practice, I  

hope, will not in future be called 'Picketing,' but 'Pictoning,' that it may be recognised  

by the dreadful appellation which belongs to it. Her position may be easily described.  

The great toe was lodged upon a sharp piece of wood, while the opposite wrist was  

suspended in a pulley, and the other hand and foot were lashed together. Another time  

the horrid ceremony was repeated, with this difference, that her feet were changed." 

[The learned counsel here produced a drawing in watercolours, in which the  

situation of the sufferer, and the magistrate, executioner and secretary, was described.  

He then proceeded:] 

"It appears to me that the case, on the part of the prosecution, will be complete  

when these facts are established in evidence; but I am to be told that though the  

highest authority in this country could not practise this on the humblest individual, yet  

that by the laws of Spain it can be perpetrated in the island of Trinidad. I should  

venture to assert that if it were written in characters impossible to be understood, that  

if it were the acknowledged law of Trinidad, it could be no justification of a British  

governor. Nothing could vindicate such a person but the law of imperious necessity,  

to which we must all submit. It was his duty to impress upon the minds of the people  

of that colony the great advantages they would derive from the benign influence of  

British jurisprudence; and that, in consequence of being received within the pale of  

this Government, torture would be for ever banished from the island. It is therefore  

not sufficient for him to establish this sort of apology; it is required of him to show  

that he complied with the institutions under the circumstances of irresistible necessity.  

This governor ought to have been aware that the torture is not known in England; and  

that it never will be, never can be, tolerated in this country. 

"The trial by rack is utterly unknown to the law of England, though once,  

when the Dukes of Exeter and Suffolk and other Ministers of Henry VI. had laid a  

design to introduce the civil law into this kingdom, as the ruling government, for a  

beginning thereof they erected a rack for torture, which was called in derision the  

Duke of Exeter's daughter, and still remains in the Tower of London, where it was  

occasionally used as an engine of state, not of law, more than once in the reign of  

Queen Elizabeth. But when, upon the assassination of Villiers, Duke of Buckingham,  

by Felton, it was proposed in the Privy Council to put the assassin to the rack, in order  

to discover his accomplices, the judges, being consulted, declared unanimously, to  

their own honour and the honour of the English law, that no such proceeding was  

allowable by the laws of England." 

Louisa Calderon was then called. She appeared to be about eighteen years of  

age, had a very interesting countenance, being a mulatto or creole, and a very genteel  

appearance. She was dressed in white, with a turban of white muslin, tied on in the  

custom of the country. Her person was slender and graceful. She spoke English but  

very indifferently, and was examined by Mr Adam through the medium of a Spanish  

interpreter. 

She deposed that she resided in the island of Trinidad in the year 1798, and  

lived in the house of Don Pedro Ruiz, and remembered the robbery. She and her  

mother were taken up on suspicion, and brought before Governor Picton, who  

committed them to prison, under the escort of three soldiers. She was put into close  

confinement; but before she was taken there, the Governor said that if she did not  

confess who had stolen the money the hangman would have to deal with her. She  

knew Bagora, the magistrate, or Lord Mayor. He came to the prison and examined her  

on the subject of the robbery many times, and on different days. De Castro, the clerk  

of the magistrate, also attended, and took down her depositions. 

She was then carried to the room where the torture was prepared. Here her left  

hand was tied up to the ceiling by a rope, with a pulley; her right hand was tied  

behind, so that her right foot and hand came in contact, while the extremity of her left  

foot rested on the wooden spike. 

A drawing, representing the exact situation, with the negro holding the rope by  

which she was suspended, was then shown to her, when she gave a shudder,  

expressive of horror, which nothing but the most painful recollection of her situation  

could have excited; on which Mr Garrow expressed his concern that his Lordship was  

not in a position to witness this accidental, but conclusive, evidence of the fact. 

Lord Ellenborough objected to the exhibition of this drawing to the jury until  

Mr Dallas, on the part of his client, permitted it to be shown to them. The examination  

then proceeded, and the remainder of Louisa Calderon's evidence corroborated the  

statement of Mr Garrow. She remained upon the spike three-quarters of an hour, and  

the next day twenty-two minutes. She swooned away each time before she was taken  

down, and was then put into irons, called the "Grillos", which were long pieces of  

iron, with two rings for the feet, fastened to the wall; and in this situation she  

remained eight months. A drawing of this instrument was also produced, which the  

witness said was an exact representation. 

The effect from this picketing was excruciating pain; her wrists and ankles  

were much swollen, and the former still bore the marks. In reply to a question by Lord  

Ellenborough, she said her feet were without shoes and stockings. 

The jailer, Bagora the magistrate, Francisco de Castro, and Raphael, an  

alguazil, with the executioner, were present at these picketings. 

Don Rafael Shandoz, an alguazil in the island, bore testimony to his having  

seen the girl immediately after the application of the torture. The apartment, in which  

she was afterwards confined, was like a garret, with sloping sides, and the grillos were  

so placed that, by the lowness of the room, she could by no means raise herself up,  

during the eight months of her confinement. There was no advocate appointed to  

attend on her behalf, and no surgeon to assist her. No one but a negro, belonging to  

Ballot the gaoler, to pull the rope. The witness had been four or five years in the post  

of alguazil. He never knew the torture inflicted in the island, until the arrival of the  

defendant. There had been before no instrument for the purpose. The first he saw was  

in the barracks among the soldiers. Before Louisa Calderon, the instrument had been  

introduced into the gaol perhaps about six months. The first person he saw tortured in  

Trinidad was by direction of the defendant, who said to the gaoler, 'Go and fetch the  

black man to the picket-guard, and put him to the torture.' After the Sght months'  

confinement, both Carlos and Louisa were discharged. 

Don Juan Montes said that he was acquainted with the handwriting of the  

defendant, and proved the document containing the order of the torture, expressed in  

these terms  

"Aplicase la question a Louisa Calderon.  

(ie. put Louisa Calderon to the torture or the question.)  

(Signed ) " THOMAS PICTON."  

After some observations from Mr Dallas, which were answered by Mr Garrow, the  

Lord Chief Justice ruled that the application of the Alcayde Beggerrat, which led to  

the issue of this order should be read. 

Mr Lowton then read the representation of this officer, advising that slight  

torture should be applied, stating that his own authority was incompetent to do it  

without the order of the Governor, and giving the result of the proceedings in the  

course of the examinations Louisa Calderon had undergone. The instrument was  

countersigned by Francisco de Castro. 

Mr Dallas, for the defendant, rested his defence upon the following  

statements:- 

First. By the law of Spain, in the present instance, torture was directed; and  

being bound to administer that law, he was vindicated in its application. 

Second. The order for the torture, if not unlawfully, was not maliciously,  

issued. 

Third. If it were unlawful, yet if the order were erroneously or mistakenly  

issued, it was a complete answer to a criminal charge. 

The learned counsel entered at considerable length into these positions, during  

which he compared the law of Spain, as it prevailed in Trinidad, with the law of  

England, as it existed in some of our own islands; and he contended that the conduct  

of General Picton was gentleness and humanity compared with what might be  

practised with impunity under the authority of the British Government. 

Don Pedro de Bargass was sworn. He deposed that during the early part of his  

life, he bad been regularly initiated and admitted to the office of an advocate at the  

Spanish law-courts in the colonies; that he had practised, after his admission, in the  

regular course, for two years, and had resided, for a shorter or more extensive period  

at five or six of the West Indian islands, in the pursuit of his profession; and that,  

according to his knowledge of the Book of Recapitulation, by which the laws are  

administered, there was nothing contained in it to justify the infliction of torture, nor  

was torture, to his knowledge, ever resorted to. He had not ever seen or heard of  

instruments for torture being kept in the gaols, or elsewhere. 

In reply to a question, 'Do you know of any existing Spanish law whatever,  

which warrants the application of torment?' he said, that there was a law of Old  

Castile, of the year 1260, which justified it in certain cases; but he never understood it  

extended to the West-India colonies; and it had long been so abhorrent in Spain, that  

if not repealed, it was fallen entirely into disuse. 

In answer to a question from Lord Ellenborough, Mr Dallas said, that he  

certainly was not prepared with any parole evidence, to prove that the use of torture  

prevailed generally in the Spanish West-Indies. 

Mr Garrow said, that he looked at this case as he regarded the honour of our  

country, and the redress of a stranger, who had visited our land to procure it. If the  

defendant had had an English heart in his bosom, he would have wanted no restrictive  

provisions to have guarded from the commission of sanguinary acts. He feared that it  

remained to the disgrace of the British name, that general Picton was the first man to  

stretch authority, and order torture to be established in the island of Trinidad. After a  

few other animated observations Mr Garrow said, he left the case to the decision of  

the jury, confidently anticipating their verdict. 

The jury found there was no such law existing in the island of Trinidad as that  

of torture at the time of the surrender of that island to the British. 

Lord Ellenborough said: "Then, gentlemen, General Picton cannot derive any  

protection from a supposed law, after you have found that no such law remained in  

that island at the surrender of it, and when he became its Governor; therefore your  

verdict should be that he is guilty." 

By the direction of Lord Ellenborough they therefore found the defendant  

guilty. 

Mr Dallas moved, on the 25th of April, for a new trial. He stated that the  

defendant was a person of respectability and character in his Majesty's service, as  

Governor of the island of Trinidad. He solicited for a new trial upon the following  

grounds:- 

First. The infamous character of the girl, who lived in open prostitution with  

Pedro Ruiz, and who had been privy to a robbery committed upon her paramour by  

Carlos Gonzalez; and when a complaint laid against her had been brought before a  

magistrate, she, refusing to confess, had been ordered to be tortured. 

Second. That Governor Picton, who condemned her to this torture, did not  

proceed from any motives of malice, but from a conviction that the right of torture  

was sanctioned by the laws of Trinidad; and that he was rooted in this opinion by a  

reference to the legal written authorities in that island. 

Third. That whatever his conduct might be, it was certainly neither personal  

malice nor disposition to tyranny, but resulted, if it should prove to be wrong, from a  

misapprehension of the laws of Trinidad. 

Fourth. That one of the principal witnesses in this trial, M. Vargass, had  

brought forward a book, entitled Recopilation des Leys des Indes, expressly compiled  

for the Spanish colonies, which did not authorise torture. The defendant had no  

opportunity of ever seeing that book, but it had been purchased by the British  

Institution at the sale of the Marquis of Lansdowne's library subsequent to his trial;  

and, having consulted it, it appeared that where that code was silent upon some  

criminal cases, recourse was always to be had to the laws of Old Spain, and these  

laws, of course, sanctioned the infliction of torture. 

The Court, after some consideration, granted the rule to show cause for a new  

trial. As the second trial, was attended with a different result from that of the first, we  

think it no more than just to the memory of Governor Picton to conclude our notice of  

this affair with the following apology for his conduct, which is extracted from a  

respectable monthly publication: 

'In an evil hour the governor associated with him, in the government of the  

island, the British naval commander on the station, and Colonel Fullarton. This was,  

as might naturally have been expected and as certainly was designed by one of the  

parties, the origin of disputes and the source of anarchy. It is well known that  

Fullarton, on his return to England, preferred charges against Picton, which were  

taken into consideration by the Privy Council and gave rise to a prosecution that  

lasted for several years. No pains were spared to sully his character, to ruin his  

fortunes, and to render him an object of public indignation. A little strumpet, by name  

Louisa Calderon, who cohabited with a petty tradesman in the capital of Trinidad, let  

another paramour into his house (of which she had the charge) during his absence,  

who robbed him, with her knowledge and privity, of all he was worth in the world.  

The girl was taken before the regular judges of the place; who, in the course of their  

investigation, ascertained the fact that she was privy to the robbery, and therefore  

sentenced her, in conformity with the laws of Spain, then prevalent in the island, to  

undergo the punishment of the picket (the same as is adopted in our own regiments of  

horse). But, as it was necessary that this sentence should receive the governor's  

confirmation before it could be carried into effect, a paper stating the necessity of it  

was sent to the government-house, and the governor, by his signature, conveyed his  

assent to the judges. The girl was accordingly picketed, when she acknowledged the  

facts above stated and discovered her accomplice. That the life of this girl was  

forfeited by the laws of every civilized country is a fact that will not admit of dispute.  

Yet clemency was here extended to her, and she was released, having suffered only  

the punishment above stated, which was so slight, that she walked a considerable  

distance to the prison, without the least appearance of suffering, immediately after it  

was inflicted. But what was the return for the lenity of the governor? He was accused  

by Colonel Fullarton of having put this girl (whom he had never even seen) to the  

torture, contrary to law; and the caricaturists of England were enlisted in the service of  

persecution. After a trial which seemed to have no end, after an expense of seven  

thousand pounds (which must have completed his ruin, had not his venerable uncle,  

General Picton, defrayed the whole costs of the suit, while the expenses of his  

prosecutor were all paid by the government) his honour and justice were established  

on the firmest basis, and to the perfect satisfaction of every upright mind.'

RICHARD PATCH  

Executed on the Top of the New Prison, in the Borough of Southwark, 8th of  

April, 1806, for Murder, after a Trial at which accommodation was  

provided for the Royal Family

RICHARD PATCH was born in the year 1770, at the village of Heavytree,  

Devonshire, within two miles of Exeter. His father was a smuggler, and was noted for  

a fierceness and intrepidity peculiar to this class of men. Many feats were related of  

his dexterity and enterprise in eluding and daring the officers of the excise, but he was  

at length laid hold of by the officers of the revenue, condemned in heavy fines, and  

sentenced to imprisonment for twelve months in the New Jail at Exeter. When the  

period of his confinement was at an end he did not, however, desert his station in the  

prison, but was engaged by the keeper as one of the turnkeys. In this situation he died,  

leaving several children, the eldest of whom was Richard, who became a farmer,  

uniting with his own paternal estate a small farm which he rented. It seems, however,  

that he farmed with little success, as he was soon obliged to mortgage his estate for  

more than one half of its value. Some years, however, were passed at Ebmere, when  

an accident drove him from his home. He went to London and immediately presented  

himself at Mr Blight's, with whom his sister, at that time, lived as a menial servant. 

Richard had not been long in the service of Mr Blight when he, naturally, cast  

a look towards his estate in Devonshire, and commenced a journey into that county  

for the purpose of making an arrangement respecting it. Accordingly, in 1804, he  

disposed of his land; for which, having first been obliged to clear off every  

embarrassment, he received a net sum of three hundred and fifty pounds, two hundred  

and fifty of which Mr Blight received for the purpose hereafter mentioned, and the  

remaining hundred pounds passed through the hands of his bankers, whom he  

probably constituted as such upon the credit of this money. 

The next year, 1805, on the 23rd of September, Mr Blight, who was induced to  

come to town by means of Mr Patch, during the absence of the latter was mortally  

wounded by a pistol, which was secretly fired at him, and which occasioned his death  

the next day. The case was particularly inquired into by A. Graham, Esq., the  

magistrate, who, suspecting Patch of the horrid murder of his friend and master,  

committed him to prison, and his trial came on at the Surrey Assizes, continued by  

adjournment to Horsemonger Lane, in the Borough, Saturday, 5th of April, 1806. 

So great was the interest excited by the approaching investigation, that by five  

o'clock in the morning a vast concourse of the populace had surrounded the avenues  

to the sessions-house, Horsemonger Lane. On the opening of the court it was with the  

utmost difficulty that the law officers, and others whose appearance was necessary,  

could obtain an entrance. The persons of rank who obtained admission were the  

Dukes of Sussex, Cumberland and Orleans; Lords Portsmouth, Grantley, Cranley,  

Montford, William Russell, Deerhurst and G. Seymour; Sir John Frederick, Sir John  

Shelley, Sir Thomas Turton, Sir William Clayton, Sir J. Mawbcy; Count Woronzow,  

the Russian Ambassador, and his secretary. The magistrates, who had met for that  

purpose the preceding Wednesday, had made every accommodation that the court  

would admit of. It was floored and lined with matting, and the upper parts were  

covered with green baize. New railing was put up on the sides and rear, and a box was  

fitted up for the Royal Family. 

The prisoner was conducted into court soon after nine o'clock, and took his  

station at the bar, attended by two or three friends. He was genteelly dressed in black,  

and perfect composure marked his countenance and manner. Precisely at ten o'clock  

Lord Chief Baron Macdonald took his seat on the bench, and the business of the  

commission was opened by arraigning the prisoner in the usual form. To the  

indictment he pleaded, in an audible voice, "Not guilty," and put himself on his  

country. 

He peremptorily challenged three jurors; after which a jury were sworn, and  

the indictment read. Several witnesses were called, and the jury pronounced a verdict  

of guilty. 

His Lordship then proceeded to pronounce the awful sentence of the law. He  

observed that the prisoner had begun his career of guilt in a system of fraud towards  

his friend; he had continued it in ingratitude, and had terminated it in blood. He then  

directed that he should be executed on Monday, and his body delivered for dissection.

CHARLES HEMMINGS AND GEORGE BEVAN  

Bogus Bow Street Officers who robbed a Clergyman, and were executed,  

April, 1806

THESE two men were tried at the Old Bailey in April 1806, for robbery on the  

highway. 

The Reverend Henry Craven Orde deposed that on the 24th of March, 1806,  

he was suddenly attacked by the prisoners in Southampton Street and robbed of his  

purse, containing a draft for eighteen pounds, a quantity of gold and silver, and  

several papers, in a dark lane opposite Southampton Street. 

The ruffians stated themselves to be Bow Street officers, who were about to  

take charge of the clergyman for an offence if he did not instantly give a sum in order  

to conceal it. Agitated by so sudden an attack on his person, and fearing the threats  

that were vociferated, he drew out his purse and gave the ruffians a seven-shilling  

piece. He then attempted to get away, when his purse, containing a draft for eighteen  

pounds drawn by his brother, the Rev. John Norman Orde, was snatched from him,  

and the robbers made off. 

The next morning two persons went to the shop of Mr Lingham, tailor, No.  

280 Strand, and purchased two surtout coats, for which they gave the eighteen-pound  

draft in payment. Bevan was the man who gave the eighteen-pound draft for the  

surtout coats; and his person having been described by Mr Lingham, Lovatt and Foy  

apprehended him on the 31st of March, at the dead wall, in Savile Row. One of the  

coats was found on Bevan. 

Two days after the robbery Hemmings went to Mr Orde's and returned the red  

leather purse to the Rev. John Norman Orde, whom he mistook for the gentleman they  

had robbed, telling him he was a Bow Street officer, that he could swear to him at any  

time, and that he had, according to his advice, given the draft to enjoin secrecy. He  

afterwards said that he was not a Bow Street officer now, but had been one two  

months ago. He was detained by the prosecutor's brother, who sent the servant for a  

constable. 

The jury found them guilty; and they were executed pursuant to their sentence.

JOHN DOCKE ROUVELETT ALIAS ROMNEY  

After maliciously prosecuting a Woman he was executed at Ilchester, at the  

Summer Assizes, 1806, in Somersetshire, for Forgery

JOHN DOCKE ROUVELETT, a notorious swindler, was well known at Bath,  

where he passed for a West Indian of considerable fortune and family. He was about  

forty years of age, and had the appearance of a creole. He lived with a woman of the  

name of Elizabeth Barnet, who passed for his wife. Having been arrested for debt, he  

was occasionally visited by this woman in the Fleet Prison, and was afterwards  

removed, by habeas corpus, into Somersetshire, on a charge of forgery. 

Conscious that Elizabeth Barnet was the only witness against him, by whose  

evidence he could be convicted of the forgery, as well as of perjury, another case also  

pending-Rouvelett having falsely sworn a debt against Mr Dorant, of the York Hotel,  

Albemarle Street-he had her taken up for a supposed robbery, and charged her with  

stealing his purse in the Fleet Prison, containing forty guineas, half-a-guinea, and a  

valuable diamond. This case of singular atrocity came on at the Old Bailey, Saturday,  

5th of July, 1806. The young woman was fashionably attired, and her appearance  

excited universal sympathy. Rouvelett was brought up from Ilchester jail, ironed, to  

prosecute on his indictment. An application was made to put off the trial, on the  

affidavit of the prosecutor, which stated that some material witnesses at Liverpool had  

not had sufficient notice to attend. The object of this attempt was to prevent the  

woman appearing against him on his trial for forgery, and also to prevent her  

becoming a witness against him in the case of perjury, as already mentioned. The  

recorder saw through the transactions, which he described as the most foul and  

audacious that ever were attempted. He ordered the trial to proceed. 

Rouvelett, who called himself a gentleman, stated that the prisoner was with  

him on the 11th of June, 1805, when he drew half-a-guinea from his purse and gave it  

to a messenger; after which he put the purse containing the property as stated in the  

indictment into the pocket of a surtout coat, which was hanging up in the room, in  

which was the ring, worth thirty pounds. There were no other persons in the room but  

the prisoner and himself, and in twenty minutes after she was gone he missed his  

property from the greatcoat pocket. He concluded that the money was safe, as the  

prisoner had gone to Dorant's hotel, Albemarle Street, and he did not suppose her  

capable of robbing him. She, however, absconded, and he never saw her again until  

she was arrested at his suit, jointly with Dorant, in an action of trover for twenty  

thousand pounds for deeds, mortgages and bonds, bearing interest, for which bail was  

given. He had no opportunity of bringing her to justice for the alleged robbery, being  

himself a prisoner. (The recorder here remarked that the prosecutor could find the  

prisoner for a civil suit, although he could not find her for the criminal act.) 

On the cross-examination of the prosecutor he said he was born at St Martin's,  

in the West Indies, and had been at most of the islands in that quarter. His uncle was a  

planter in the West Indies, and he lived on such means, whilst in England, as his  

family afforded him. He was brought up in Amsterdam, at the house of Mr Hope,  

banker; after which he became a lieutenant in the British Army (the 87th Regiment).  

He knew Mr Hope, of Harley Street, Cavendish Square, and Mr Hope knew him to be  

Mr Rouvelett, of St Martin's, for the two families had been closely connected for a  

hundred years. He lived in England on remittances from his uncle, in goods or bills,  

but he had no property of his own. Messrs Stephens & Boulton used to pay witness  

his remittances at Liverpool, but he could not tell who paid them in London. The  

recorder observed that the witness should not be pressed too far to give an account of  

himself, as he (the prisoner) stood charged with forgery. Being asked if he, the  

witness, had not said he would be revenged on the prisoner, as she was intimate with  

Dorant, and charge her with a felony, he answered that he did not recollect having  

said so; but the question being pressed, he partly acknowledged it. The purse, which  

was empty, witness acknowledged was found under the pillow, on the 12th of June,  

the day after the alleged robbery, by his room chum, a man of the name of Cummings.  

The prisoner was with him in prison after the 12th of June, although he had said she  

had absconded. 

The recorder did not suffer the cause to be further proceeded in, and directed  

the jury to acquit the prisoner; he also observed this was the most foul charge he had  

ever heard of. 

The disgust of the persons in court as the fellow retired was manifested by  

hisses and groans in such a manner as baffled the efforts of the officers of justice for  

some time to suppress. 

The trial of this malicious offender, who was thus happily disappointed in his  

views, came on at Wells, on Tuesday, 12th of August, 1806, before Baron Thompson,  

and excited uncommon interest throughout the county of Somerset. 

The prisoner, John Docke Romney alias Rouvelett, was indicted for having  

feloniously and knowingly forged a certain bill of exchange, dated Grenada, 10th of  

November, 1804, for four hundred and twenty pounds sterling, payable at nine  

months' sight to the order of George Danley, Esq., and drawn by Willis & Co. on  

Messrs Child & Co. in London, with the forged acceptance of Messrs Child & Co. on  

the face thereof, with intent to defraud Mary Simeon. 

Mr Burrough entered into the details of the case, which were afterwards  

substantiated by the evidence. 

Mr Philip George, the younger clerk to the Mayor of Bath, stated that the bill  

in question was delivered to him by the Mayor of Bath, and that he had ever since  

kept the bill in his own custody. 

Mrs Mary Simeon, dealer in laces, at Bath, deposed that in April, 1805, she  

lived at Bath. The prisoner came to her house on or about the 16th of March 1805; he  

looked at several articles in which she dealt, bought a fan, paid for it, and said he  

should bring his wife with him in the afternoon. He accordingly did so, and brought  

Elizabeth Barnet as his wife, Mrs Romney. He asked whether Mrs Simeon had a  

Brussels veil of a hundred and fifty guineas' value. The witness answered she had not.  

He then bought two yards of lace, at four guineas a yard, and went away. This  

happened on a Saturday. The following Monday he came again, accompanied by his  

wife, looked at a lace cloak, at veils worth five and twenty guineas, and other goods,  

but did not buy any. In the course of the week he called again, and proposed to  

purchase a quantity of goods from the witness, if she would take a bill of a long date,  

accepted by Messrs Child & Co., bankers, in London. Witness answered she had no  

objections to take a bill accepted by such a house. He returned in two or three days  

and purchased articles to the value of about one hundred and forty pounds, which,  

with other goods afterwards bought, and with money advanced by her, made the  

prisoner her debtor to the amount of two hundred and ninety-nine pounds. He bought  

all the articles himself, unaccompanied by his wife. In the month of April, between  

the 20th and 24th, the prisoner proposed paying for the different articles, and he  

brought his wife to the house, when a meeting took place between them and the  

witness, and her brother, Mr Du Hamel. He said: "I am going to London, and I should  

like to settle with you. This is the bill I proposed to you to take; it is accepted by Child  

& Co., bankers, in London"; and, turning over the bill, he added: "The endorser is as  

good as the acceptors." 

The bill was here produced, and proved by Mrs Simeon to be the same which  

the prisoner gave to her in April, 1805. 

The witness then took the bill, and her brother, Mr Du Hamel, paid to him, for  

her, thirty-five pounds, which, with the articles previously bought, made the whole of  

the prisoner's debt to her two hundred and ninety-nine pounds. In her presence he  

wrote on the bill the name of John Romney, as his name. He afterwards went to  

London by the mail. She sent the bill to London the next day. 

The conversation which passed between her and the prisoner, in the presence  

of her brother and Elizabeth Barnet, was entirely in the French language. He left his  

wife at her house, where she slept. While he was absent the witness received  

intelligence from London that the bill was a forgery, and she instantly wrote a letter to  

the prisoner, informing him of it. He came to Bath in consequence of the letter, late on  

a Sunday night, and a meeting took place then at her house with him, his wife, herself,  

her brother, and her solicitor, Mr Luke Evill, of Bath. The conversation then passed in  

English. Several questions were put to the prisoner by herself and by Mr Evill. Mr  

Evill asked him whether he had any business with W. A. Bailey, the endorser, which  

induced him to take the bill. He said Mr Bailey had sold some sugar for him. She  

asked him if Bailey lived in London; he replied at some inn or coffee-house, the name  

of which she did not recollect. He was then asked in what island or islands Mr  

Bailey's property was situated. He mentioned two or three islands in the West Indies,  

but he did not know in which of them Mr Bailey was at that time. The prisoner then  

inquired where the bill was. Being informed by the witness that it was in London, he  

said she must write to get it sent back. She, however, declared that such an application  

would be unavailing, and the prisoner pressed her to go to London herself. She  

refused to go alone, and he entreated Mr Evill to accompany her, saying that he would  

give Mr Evill twenty pounds to defray the expenses of the journey, which he  

accordingly did. She set out at ten o'clock that night, accompanied by Mr Evill, and  

obtained the bill from Messrs Sloper & Allen, in whose custody it was, by paying  

three hundred guineas, which was all the money she then had at her bankers'. She  

brought the bill back to Bath, having stopped but one day in London; but the prisoner  

was not at Bath when she returned. He had left some property at her house with his  

wife, who had removed from Sidney House, with his clothes, etc. The bill remained  

after this in her custody about a twelvemonth, and was given up to Mr Evill by her  

brother. Mr Dorant paid the whole of the debt due by the prisoner on the 6th of May,  

1805, a few days after the prisoner finally left Bath. 

Upon the cross-examination of Mrs Simeon, it appeared that she considered  

the prisoner and Elizabeth Barnet as man and wife. It was not until May, 1806, that  

she appeared before the Mayor of Bath against the prisoner, whom she knew to have  

been in the Fleet Prison. She did not go before the magistrate at the solicitation of Mr  

Dorant, nor did she at any time, nor on any account, receive any money from Dorant,  

but what was actually and fairly due to her by the prisoner.  

Mr Du Hamel, brother of Mrs Simeon, corroborated all the principal facts  

stated by his sister. 

Mr Whelan deposed that he was a clerk in the house of Messrs Child & Co. He  

had filled that situation for about nine years, and, from his knowledge of the business,  

was enabled to state their manner of accepting bills. The house had no correspondence  

whatever at Grenada by the name of Willis & Co., and the acceptance which appeared  

on the face of the bill was not the acceptance of Messrs Child & Co. 

Elizabeth Barnet was next called. She deposed that she became acquainted  

with the prisoner in the month of September, 1804, when at Liverpool. About a  

fortnight after she first saw him she began to live with him, and continued till the 6th  

of June, 1805; during all that period she passed under the name of Mrs Romney. She  

left Liverpool in the month of January, 1805, and came to London with the prisoner.  

They then took lodgings at Mr Dorant's hotel, in Albemarle Street. The account he  

gave of himself to her was that he was a West Indian planter, and that he had estates  

in Martinique and St Kitts. They remained between two and three months at Mr  

Dorant's hotel, during which time they were not visited by anybody except a Mr  

Hope, whom she remembered seeing with the prisoner. This Mr Hope was not  

represented to her as coming from Holland. She accompanied Mr Romney to Bath,  

and on their arrival there they lodged at the White Hart Inn for about a fortnight  

previous to her lodging at Madame Simeon's. Soon after their arrival at the White  

Hart she went along with the prisoner to Madame Simeon's to look at some laces and  

a black cloak. None of these articles, however, was purchased at that time by the  

prisoner, they being afterwards bought when she was not present. She heard the  

prisoner state to Madame Simeon that he would give her a bill of exchange, accepted  

by Child & Co. of London. She did not then see any bill in his possession, but saw  

him writing one three days afterwards, when he sent the witness for some red ink.  

Two or three days after the prisoner gave the bill to Madame Simeon he was much  

disturbed, and on being asked the reason he said he would be hanged. He asked her to  

fetch him his writing-desk, which she did. He then took out a large parcel of papers  

and burned them. She had no opportunity of seeing what those papers were. She said  

to him: "Were the papers any harm?" He said: "Yes; and there was a paper which  

must not be seen." She never lived with the prisoner after the 6th of June, 1805. She,  

however, remembered visiting him in the Fleet Prison. She was soon afterwards  

arrested at Bath, at the prisoner's instance, for the sum of twenty thousand, three  

hundred and twenty pounds, and carried to Winchester jail, and afterwards removed to  

the King's Bench. She saw the prisoner on this occasion, and again at the Old Bailey,  

when he was examined as a witness against her on her trial. He then charged her with  

having robbed him on the 11th of June, 1805, of forty guineas and a diamond ring,  

when he was in the Fleet Prison. This charge was totally without foundation, as was  

also the alleged debt of twenty thousand, three hundred and twenty pounds. She never  

had any transactions in her life to which such a charge could refer. 

On her cross-examination she deposed that her real name was Elizabeth  

Barnet. She was the daughter of a farmer in Shropshire, from whom she had had a  

plain education. She left her father when nineteen years of age and went to Liverpool,  

where she lodged with a Mrs Barns. She lived in Liverpool about nine or ten months.  

After she had left off seeing Mr Rouvelett in the Fleet she lodged at a Mr Fox's, in  

Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, for seven or eight weeks. She afterwards went to  

Berry Street. 

To some additional interrogatories by Mr Burrough this witness further  

deposed that the prisoner Romney sued out a writ against her for twelve hundred  

pounds, exclusive of the sum before mentioned. This was after she had ceased to visit  

him in prison and had gone to reside at her father's, and it was also previous to the  

arrest for the twenty thousand, three hundred and twenty pounds already taken notice  

of. No demand was made against her by the prisoner when she visited him in the jail. 

The jury, having consulted for a few minutes, returned a verdict of guilty of  

forging the acceptance, and of uttering it knowing it to be forged. 

The trial lasted nearly twelve hours, and the court was filled in every part.  

Among the audience were the first characters in the country. This notorious offender  

was executed at Ilchester, pursuant to his sentence, on the 3rd of September, 1806. He  

was dressed in a blue coat with metal buttons, striped trousers, green slippers, and a  

fur cap.

JOHN HOLLOWAY AND OWEN HAGGERTY  

A Hundred Spectators were killed or injured in a Crush at the Execution of  

these Men before Newgate, 22nd of February, 1807

THE fatal accident which happened on the spot and at the moment of the  

execution of these men, by which more than forty people lost their lives, and many  

more were terribly bruised, will cause their memory, more than their crimes, to  

remain a dreadful warning to many generations. Their whole case, indeed, was  

attended with singular and awful circumstances. Even of their guilt many entertained  

doubts, which were not entirely removed. Their conviction rested upon the evidence  

of a wretch as base as themselves, who stated himself to have been their accomplice;  

but the public indignation against them was excited to such a pitch that it is not to be  

wondered at that a jury pronounced them guilty. 

On the 6th of November, 1802, Mr John Cole Steele, who kept the Lavender  

Warehouse, in Catherine Street, Strand, was murdered, with much barbarity, on  

Hounslow Heath, and his pockets rifled of their contents. The murderers escaped.  

Though rewards were offered for their apprehension, no discovery was made. Every  

search had been made by the officers of the police after them. Several loose characters  

were apprehended on suspicion, but discharged on examination, and all hopes had  

been given up of tracing the murderers, when a circumstance occurred, about four  

years afterwards, which led to the apprehension of John Holloway and Owen  

Haggerty. A man of the name of Benjamin Hanfield, who had been convicted at the  

Old Bailey of grand larceny, was sentenced to seven years' transportation. He was  

conveyed on board a hulk at Portsmouth, to await his departure for New South Wales,  

but being seized with a severe illness, and tortured in his mind by the recollection of  

the murder, about which he constantly raved, he said he wished to make a discovery  

before he died. A message was immediately dispatched to the police magistrates at  

Bow Street to communicate the circumstance, and an officer was sent to bring him  

before them. When he was brought on shore they were obliged to wait several days,  

his illness not permitting his immediate removal. On his arrival in town the  

magistrates sent him, in the custody of an officer, to Hounslow Heath. He there  

pointed out the fatal spot where the murder was perpetrated, and related all the  

circumstances which he alleged had attended it; and as his evidence implicated  

Haggerty and Holloway, measures were taken to apprehend them. Several private  

examinations of all the parties took place. Hanfield was admitted King's evidence, and  

the public once more cherished a hope that the murderers would meet with the  

punishment they deserved. 

Monday, 9th of February, 1807, being the day appointed for the final and  

public examination of the reputed perpetrators of this atrocious murder, Holloway and  

Haggerty were brought up before Joseph Moser, Esq., the sitting magistrate at the  

police office, Worship Street, charged with wilfully murdering Mr J. C. Steele, on  

Saturday night, the 6th of November, 1802, on Hounslow Heath. 

There was a great body of evidence adduced, none of which tended materially  

to incriminate the prisoners, except that of Hanfield, the accomplice, who, under the  

promise of pardon, had turned King's evidence.  

The prisoners denied having any knowledge whatever of the crime laid to their  

charge, but heartily hoped that punishment would come to the guilty. 

The magistrates, however, after maturely considering the whole of the  

evidence adduced, thought proper to commit the prisoners fully for trial at the next  

Quarter Sessions at the Old Bailey, and bound over no less than twenty-four persons  

to appear and give evidence on the trial. 

Such was the eager curiosity of the public to know the issue of this trial, which  

began on the 20th of February, 1807, before Sir Simon Le Blanc, Kt., that the whole  

court and area of the Old Bailey was greatly crowded. When put to the bar, Holloway  

appeared to be about forty years of age, of great muscular strength, tall, and of savage,  

brutal and ferocious countenance, with large thick lips, depressed nose and high  

check-bones. Haggerty was a small man, twenty-four years of age. 

The King's pardon, under the Great Seal, to Hanfield, alias Enfield, remitting  

his sentence of transportation for seven years for a larceny, which he had been  

convicted of, and restoring him to his competency as a witness, was read. 

Benjamin Hanfield then deposed as nearly as follows:- 

"I have known Haggerty eight or nine years, and Holloway six or seven. We  

were accustomed to meet at the Black Horse and Turk's Head public-houses, in Dyot  

Street. I was in their company in the month of November, 1802. Holloway, just before  

the murder, called me out from the Turk's Head, and asked me if I had any objection  

to be in a good thing. I replied I had not. He said it was a 'Low Toby,' meaning it was  

a footpad robbery. I asked when and where. He said he would let me know. We  

parted, and two days after we met again, and Saturday, the 6th of November, was  

appointed. I asked who was to go with us. He replied that Haggerty had agreed to  

make one. We all three met on the Saturday at the Black Horse, when Holloway said:  

'Our business is to "sarve," a gentleman on Hounslow Heath, who, I understand,  

travels that road with property.' We then drank for about three or four hours, and  

about the middle of the day we set off for Hounslow. We stopped at the Bell public- 

house and took some porter. We proceeded from thence upon the road towards  

Belfont, and expressed our hope that we should get a good booty. We stopped near the  

eleventh milestone and secreted ourselves in a clump of trees. While there the moon  

got up, and Holloway said we had come too soon. After loitering about a considerable  

time, Holloway said he heard a footstep, and we proceeded towards Belfont. We  

presently saw a man coming towards us, and, on approaching him, we ordered him to  

stop, which he immediately did. Holloway went round him and told him to deliver. He  

said we should have his money, and hoped we would not ill-use him. The deceased  

put his hand in his pocket and gave Haggerty his money. I demanded his pocket-book.  

He replied that he had none. Holloway insisted that he had a book, and if he did not  

deliver it he would knock him down. I then laid hold of his legs. Holloway stood at  

his head, and said if he cried out he would knock out his brains. The deceased again  

said he hoped we would not ill-use him. Haggerty proceeded to search him, when the  

deceased made some resistance, and struggled so much that we got across the road.  

He cried out severely; and, as a carriage was coming up, Holloway said: 'Take care; I  

will silence the b--r,' and immediately struck him several violent blows on the head  

and body. The deceased heaved a heavy groan and stretched himself out lifeless. I felt  

alarmed, and said: 'John, you have killed the man.' Holloway replied that it was a lie,  

for he was only stunned. I said I would stay no longer, and immediately set off  

towards London, leaving Holloway and Haggerty with the body. I came to Hounslow,  

and stopped at the end of the town for nearly an hour. Holloway and Haggerty then  

came up, and said they had done the trick, and, as a token, put the deceased's hat into  

my hand. The hat Holloway went down in was like a soldier's hat. I told Holloway it  

was a cruel piece of business, and that I was sorry I had had any hand in it. We all  

turned down a lane and returned to London, As we went along I asked Holloway if he  

had got the pocket-book. He replied that it was no matter, for as I had refused to share  

the danger, I should not share the booty. We came to the Black Home, in Dyot Street,  

had half-a-pint of gin, and parted. Haggerty went down in shoes, but I don't know if  

he came back in them. The next day I observed Holloway had a hat upon his head  

which was too small for him. I asked him if it was the same he had got the preceding  

night. He said it was. We met again on the Monday, when I told Holloway that he  

acted imprudently in wearing the hat, as it might lead to a discovery. He put the hat  

into my hand, and I observed the name of Steele in it. I repeated my fears. At night  

Holloway brought the hat in a handkerchief, and we went to Westminster Bridge,  

filled the hat with stones, and, having tied the lining over it, threw it into the Thames.' 

The witness, being cross-examined by counsel for the prisoners, said he had  

made no other minutes of the transactions he had been detailing than what his  

conscience took cognisance of. It was accident that led to this disclosure. He was  

talking with other prisoners in Newgate of particular robberies that had taken place,  

and the Hounslow robbery and murder being stated amongst others, he inadvertently  

said that there were only three persons who knew of that transaction. The remark was  

circulated and observed upon, and a rumour ran through the prison that he was about  

to turn "nose," and he was obliged to hold his tongue, lest he should be ill-used. 

James Bishop, a police officer, stated that in the rear of the public office in  

Worship Street were some strong-rooms for the safe keeping of prisoners pending  

their successive examinations. In two of these rooms, adjacent to each other, and  

separated by a strong partition, the prisoners were separately confined, and  

immediately behind these rooms was a privy. In this privy he took post regularly after  

each successive day's examination; and as the privy went behind both rooms, he could  

distinctly overhear the conversation of the prisoners, as they spoke pretty audibly to  

each other from either side of the partition. Of this conversation he took notes, which  

were afterwards copied out fairly, and proved before the magistrates, and which he,  

on this occasion, read as his evidence in court. 

Mr Andrews, counsel for the prisoners, objected to this sort of evidence, it  

being impossible, he said, that the officers could overhear all that was said, and that  

the conversation thus mutilated might be misconstrued; besides, the minds of officers,  

for the sake of reward, were always prejudiced against the prisoners. His objections,  

however, were overruled by the Court. 

These conversations ran to a very considerable length but the material points  

were few. They showed, however, from the words of the prisoners' own conversation,  

that all they had said before the magistrates, in the denial of any acquaintance with  

each other, or with Hanfield, was totally false, and a mere stratagem to baffle the  

testimony of the latter, who they hoped had secured his own execution, by confessing  

his guilt, without being able to prove theirs. 

The prosecution being closed, the prisoners were called to make their defence. 

Haggerty protested he was completely innocent of the charge, was totally  

ignorant of the prosecutor Hanfield, denied ever being at Hounslow, and endeavoured  

to point out some inconsistencies in the evidence which had been adduced by  

Hanfield. 

Holloway declared he was equally innocent of the charge; but admitted he had  

been at Hounslow more than once, might have been in the company of the prisoners  

Haggerty and Hanfield, but was not acquainted with either of them. 

Mr Justice Le Blanc summed up the evidence in a very clear and perspicuous  

manner, making some very humane observations upon the nature of the testimony  

given by Hanfield. He admitted that such testimony should be received with caution;  

yet such strong collateral evidence must have its due weight and influence on their  

verdict. 

The jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, and returned with a verdict of  

guilty against both the prisoners. 

The recorder immediately passed sentence in the most solemn and impressive  

manner, and the unhappy men were ordered for execution on the following Monday  

morning. 

They went from the bar protesting their innocence, and apparently careless of  

the miserable and ignominious fate that awaited them. 

Following conviction, Haggerty and Holloway conducted themselves with the  

most decided indifference. On Saturday, 21st of February, the cell door, No. 1, in  

which they were both confined, was opened about half-past two. They were each  

reading a Prayer Book by candle-light, as the cell was very dark. On Sunday neither  

of them attended the condemned sermon, as in cases of murder the offenders were  

deprived of benefit of clergy; neither did the bell of St Sepulchre toll during the  

solemnity of their execution. 

During the whole of Sunday night the convicts were engaged in prayer, never  

slept, but broke the awful stillness of midnight by frequent protestations of reciprocal  

innocence. At five they were called, dressed and shaved, and about seven were  

brought into the press-yard. There was some difficulty in knocking off the irons of  

Haggerty; he voluntarily assisted, though he seemed much dejected, but by no means  

pusillanimous. A message was then delivered to the sheriffs, purporting that Holloway  

wanted to speak with them in private. This excited very sanguine expectations of  

confession; but the sheriffs, on their return, intimated to the gentlemen in the press- 

yard that Holloway wanted to address them publicly, and therefore requested they  

would form themselves into a circle, from the centre of which Holloway delivered, in  

the most solemn manner, the following energetic address: "Gentlemen, I am quite  

innocent of this affair. I never was with Hanfield, nor do I know the spot. I will kneel  

and swear it." He then knelt down, and imprecated curses on his head if he were not  

innocent, and exclaimed, "By God, I am innocent!" 

Owen Haggerty then ascended the scaffold. His arms were pinioned, and the  

halter was round his neck. He wore a white cap and a light olive shag greatcoat. He  

looked downwards, and was silent. After the executioner had tied the fatal noose, he  

brought up John Holloway, who wore a smock-frock and jacket, as it had been stated  

by the approver that he did at the time of the murder; he had also a white cap on, was  

pinioned, and had a halter round his neck. He had his hat in his hand. Mounting the  

scaffold, he jumped, made an awkward bow, and said: "I am innocent, innocent, by  

God!" He then turned round and, bowing, made use of the same expressions:  

"Innocent, innocent, innocent! Gentlemen, no verdict! No verdict! No verdict!  

Gentlemen, innocent! Innocent!" At this moment, and while in the act of saying  

something more, the executioner proceeded to do his office, by placing the cap over  

the face of Holloway; to which he, with apparent reluctance, complied, at the same  

time uttering some words. As soon as the rope was fixed round his neck he remained  

quiet. He was attended in his devotions by an assistant at the Rev. Rowland Hill's  

chapel. 

The last that mounted the scaffold was Elizabeth Godfrey. She had been  

capitally convicted of the wilful murder of Richard Prince, in Marylebone parish, on  

the 25th of December, 1806, by giving him a mortal wound with a pocket-knife in the  

left eye, of which wound he languished and died. They were all launched off together,  

at about a quarter after eight. 

The crowd which assembled to witness this execution was unparalleled, being,  

according to the best calculation, nearly forty thousand; and the fatal catastrophe  

which happened in consequence will for long cause the day to be remembered. By  

eight o'clock not an inch of ground was unoccupied in view of the platform. The  

pressure of the crowd was such that, before the malefactors appeared, numbers of  

persons were crying out in vain to escape from it; the attempt only tended to increase  

the confusion. Several females of low stature who had been so imprudent as to  

venture among the mob were in a dismal situation; their cries were dreadful. Some  

who could be no longer supported by the men were suffered to fall, and were trampled  

to death. This also was the case with several men and boys. In all parts there were  

continued cries of "Murder! Murder!"-particularly from the females and children  

among the spectators, some of whom were seen expiring without the possibility of  

obtaining the least assistance, everyone being employed in endeavours to preserve his  

own life. 

The most affecting scene of distress was seen at Green Arbour Lane, nearly  

opposite the debtors' door. The terrible occurrence which took place near this spot was  

attributed to the circumstance of two piemen attending there to dispose of their pies.  

One of them having had his basket overthrown, which stood upon a sort of stool with  

four legs, some of the mob, not being aware of what had happened, and at the same  

time being severely pressed, fell over the basket and the man at the moment he was  

picking it up, together with its contents. Those who once fell were never more  

suffered to rise, such was the violence of the mob. At this fatal place a man of the  

name of Harrington was thrown down, who had by the hand his youngest son, a fine  

boy about twelve years of age. The youth was soon trampled to death; the father  

recovered, though much bruised, and was amongst the wounded in St Bartholomew's  

Hospital. A woman who was so imprudent as to bring with her a child at the breast  

was one of the number killed. Whilst in the act of falling she forced the child into the  

arms of the man nearest to her, requesting him, for God's sake, to save its life. The  

man, finding it required all his exertion to preserve himself, threw the infant from  

him, but it was fortunately caught at a distance by another man, who, finding it  

difficult to ensure its safety or his own, got rid of it in a similar way. The child was  

again caught by a man, who contrived to struggle with it to a cart, under which he  

deposited it until the danger was over, and the mob had dispersed. In other parts the  

pressure was so great that a horrible scene of confusion ensued, and seven persons lost  

their lives by suffocation alone. It was shocking to behold a large body of the crowd,  

as one convulsive struggle for life, fight with the most savage fury with each other;  

the consequence was that the weakest, particularly the women, fell a sacrifice. A cart  

which was overloaded with spectators broke down, and some of the persons who fell  

from the vehicle were trampled underfoot, and never recovered. During the hour that  

the malefactors hung, little assistance could be afforded to the unhappy sufferers; but  

after the bodies were cut down, and the gallows removed to the Old Bailey Yard, the  

marshals and constables cleared the street where the catastrophe occurred, and,  

shocking to relate, there lay nearly one hundred persons dead, or in a state of  

insensibility, strewed round the street! Twenty-seven dead bodies were taken to St  

Bartholomew's Hospital, four to St Sepulchre's Church, one to the Swan, on Snow  

Hill, one to a public-house opposite St Andrew's Church, Holborn; one, an apprentice,  

to his master's; Mr Broadwood, pianoforte maker, to Golden Square. A mother was  

seen carrying away the body of her dead boy; Mr Harrison, a respectable gentleman,  

was taken to his house at Holloway. There was a sailor-boy killed opposite Newgate,  

by suffocation; he carried a small bag, in which he had some bread and cheese, and  

was supposed to have come some distance to behold the execution. After the dead,  

dying and wounded were carried away, there was a cartload of shoes, hats, petticoats  

and other articles of wearing apparel picked up. Until four o'clock in the afternoon  

most of the surrounding houses had some person in a wounded state; they were  

afterwards taken away by their friends on shutters, or in hackney-coaches. The doors  

of St Bartholomew's Hospital were closed against the populace. After the bodies of  

the dead were stripped and washed they were ranged round a ward on the first floor,  

on the women's side; they were placed on the floor with sheets over them, and their  

clothes put as pillows under their heads; their faces were uncovered. There was a rail  

along the centre of the room: the persons who were admitted to see the shocking  

spectacle went up on one side of the rail, and returned on the other. Until two o'clock  

the entrances to the hospital were beset with mothers weeping for sons, wives for their  

husbands and sisters for their brothers, and various individuals for their relatives and  

friends. 

The next day (Tuesday) a coroner's inquest sat in St Bartholomew's Hospital,  

and other places where the bodies were, on the remains of the sufferers. Several  

witnesses were examined with respect to the circumstances of the accident, which  

examination continued till Friday, when the verdict was, "That the several persons  

came by their death from compression and suffocation."

JOHN MAYCOCK  

Executed 23rd of March, 1807, on the Top of the New Jail, Horsemonger  

Lane, Southwark, for the Murder Of an old lone Lady, Mrs Ann Pooley, in  

company with John Pope, who was admitted Evidence for the Crown.

ON the 20th of March, 1807, Maycock and Pope were put upon their trial at  

Kingston, on a charge of committing this crime in the preceding month of August. 

The case was opened by Mr Knowles, who stated that it was one of a most  

aggravated nature, and perpetrated in the most deliberate manner, for the sake of  

plunder. From the compunctions of remorse with which one of the prisoners (Pope)  

had been visited, he had disclosed the whole of the guilty affair; and he trusted that, in  

the moment of need, at another tribunal, he might find mercy. 

Mrs Sarah Pooley, sister of the deceased, stated that her sister lived in Free  

School Street, Horsleydown, in a very retired manner, the house being almost  

constantly shut up, and no servant in attendance. The last time she saw the deceased  

was on the 26th of July when she carried her the dividend due on her stock, which  

amounted to twelve pounds. This sum she paid her in six two-pound notes of the Bank  

of England, all new. Having been informed of the murder, she procured a Mr Garrett  

to examine the house. 

John Mackrill Garrett stated that on the 20th of August he searched the house,  

and discovered the deceased lying on her back in the kitchen; her left leg was bent  

under her, her clothes were all smooth, but her pockets had been turned inside out.  

There were a pair of scissors, a thimble and a pen-knife lying by her side. The body  

was in a putrid state. On making a further search he found that all the drawers and  

boxes had been rifled, and that the murderer or murderers had entered the house by  

pulling out some bricks which were under the washhouse window. A Mr Humphries  

and his wife also assisted him in the search. 

Thomas Griffin, a corn porter, was acquainted with the prisoner Maycock; he  

met him about two months previous to the murder, when the prisoner said: "Tom, I'll  

put you into a good job." The witness asked what it was. The prisoner replied: "I  

know an elderly lady who lives by herself in a house which is shut up, and she is  

worth a deal of money; you and I, and a stout young fellow who works with Mr  

Burgess, will do her out of it." The prisoner did not tell the witness where the lady  

lived. He said his companion was formerly a bargeman at Ware. The witness refused  

to have any concern in the robbery, and when he heard of the murder he  

communicated the circumstance to his brother, who brought Mr Graham to his house  

(the witness being ill) to take his deposition. Previous to this communication, and  

subsequent to the murder, he had seen the prisoner, who told him he had plenty of  

money. 

Aaron Graham, Esq., was examined, touching the confession of Pope  

respecting the murder. Mr Graham stated that Maycock was not present when Pope  

made the confession, and that the proclamation offering a reward for the discovery of  

the murderers lay on the table. Mr Graham asked Pope if he had seen it, and he replied  

in the affirmative: that this question was put to him in order to induce him to confess. 

At this stage of the prosecution some discussion arose respecting the acquittal  

of Pope, it being contended by his counsel, Mr Guerney, that he was entitled to his  

acquittal, and that in fact he ought not to have been put upon his trial, he having  

confessed under the inducement of being pardoned. 

Mr Knowles, for the prosecution, contended that he ought to have been made a  

party with the other prisoner, but the Chief Baron ruled that Pope stood in the same  

situation as any other prisoner: that he had confessed under the promise of being  

pardoned, and that he was entitled to it. The prisoner Pope was accordingly acquitted,  

and the trial proceeded against Maycock. 

John Pope was then called, and his evidence was to the following effect: "I am  

a corn porter at present, but formerly had some craft at Bishop's Stortford, on the  

River Ware. I had known Maycock about a year and a half before the murder. About  

six weeks previous, he asked me to go with him to rob an old woman, who lived in a  

hugger-mugger way, at a shut-up house. We had many conversations upon the  

subject; and it went on till Saturday, the 9th of August, when he asked me to go that  

evening. I agreed. We got through the loophole, or kind of cock-loft window, which  

joins the Bull, and is part of the deceased's house. I took some bricks out in order to  

get in. I then unbolted the door and let Maycock in. We went down into the cellar,  

where we remained till about eight o'clock, when the deceased came down. Maycock  

went up to the top of the stairs, and the instant she opened the door he rushed at her,  

threw her down, and she screamed out: 'Oh!' I then ran upstairs, and saw Maycock  

kneeling over her, with his hand or arm on her neck, which he held until she was quite  

dead. She never moved after I first saw her. Said he to me: 'She is dead.' We then  

went upstairs and rifled the drawers, from whence we took out gold, silver, bank- 

notes and halfpence to the amount of ninety pounds. We divided the booty. The notes  

were all two-pound notes." 

The jury, after a short consideration, returned a verdict of guilty against the  

prisoner. The learned Chief Baron then sentenced him to be hanged on the following  

Monday, and to be dissected. When sentence was passed on him he observed, on  

going from the dock: "Thank you for that; I'm done snug enough." 

He was executed at Horsemonger Lane jail on the 23rd of March, 1807.

WILLIAM DUNCAN  

Convicted for the Murder of his Master, William Chivers, Esq., and  

transported for Life, March, 1807

WILLIAM DUNCAN was employed in the service of William Chivers, Esq.,  

as gardener, at Clapham Common. On the morning of the day of the murder, after  

breakfast, the niece of Mr Chivers, who resided with him, went in his carriage to take  

an airing. Mr Chivers, who was between seventy and eighty years of age, went into  

his garden to take a walk, as was his daily custom, inspecting the gardener at his  

work, and conversing with him. About half-past eleven o'clock the gardener ran into  

the house from the garden, in great agitation and terror, exclaiming to the servants:  

"Lord, what have I done! I have struck my master, and he has fallen"; and  

immediately left the house, without giving any explanation, and made for the town of  

Clapham. The footman went into the garden to discover what had happened, when he  

found his master on the ground, apparently lifeless, and his face a most shocking  

spectacle. It appeared that the gardener had struck his master with a spade that he was  

working with, the end of which entered the lower part of his nose, broke both his  

jawbones, and penetrated nearly to a line with his ears, so that his head was almost  

separated. The gardener had inflicted two deep wounds, one being about eight inches  

in length and three inches and a half in breadth. Duncan was soon after apprehended,  

and the magistrates committed him to Horsemonger Lane Prison. The cause of the  

shocking act was a dispute between him and his master respecting the pruning of a  

vine.  

The jury, after having conferred for a considerable time, found the prisoner  

guilty of murder; and he was accordingly sentenced to be executed on the Monday  

following, and to be anatomised. 

The prisoner, during the whole of the time, conducted himself with great  

composure. He was a man of respectable appearance. 

The Privy Council, however, did not, it appears, conceive that he was guilty of  

wilful and premeditated murder, but, on the contrary, admitted an immediate  

provocation on the part of the unfortunate old gentleman. They therefore represented  

him as a subject for Royal clemency, in consequence whereof he was twice respited,  

and then ordered to be transported for the term of his natural life.

GEORGE ALLEN  

An Epileptic, who was executed at Stafford, 30th of March, 1807, for the  

Murder of his Three Children

INSANITY probably caused the horrid deed to be committed which we are  

now going to relate. It appeared in evidence on the trial that George Allen had  

previously thereto been subject to epileptic fits, but that on the Sunday preceding the  

day whereon he committed the murder he was considerably better. Though a jury  

found him guilty of premeditated murder, we must, in charity to the failings of human  

nature, suppose that one of these mental derangements, epilepsy, again seized him at  

the time he committed this strange, cruel, and most unnatural murder. His  

examination before the coroner also seems to favour this opinion. 

At eight o'clock on the evening of the 12th of January, 1807, he retired to rest,  

and when his wife followed him, in the course of an hour, she found him sitting  

upright in bed, smoking his pipe, which was his usual custom. In another bed, in the  

same room, lay three of his infant children asleep, the eldest boy, about ten years old,  

the second a girl about six, and another boy about three. When his wife got into bed,  

with an infant at her breast, he asked her what other man she had in the house with  

her. To which she replied that no man had been, there but himself. He insisted to the  

contrary, and his wife continued to assert her innocence. He then jumped out of bed  

and went downstairs, and she, from an impulse of fear, followed him. She met him on  

the stairs and asked him what he had been doing in such a hurry. In answer he ordered  

her to get upstairs again. He then went to the bed where his children were and turned  

down the clothes. On her endeavouring to hold him he told her to let him alone, or he  

would serve her with the same sauce, and immediately attempted to cut her throat, in  

which he partly succeeded, and also wounded her right breast; but a handkerchief she  

wore about her head and neck prevented the wound from being fatal. She then  

extricated herself (having the babe in her arms all the time, which she preserved  

unhurt), and jumped, or rather fell, downstairs. Before she had well got up, one of the  

children (the girl) fell at her feet, with her head almost cut off, which he had murdered  

and thrown after her. The woman opened the door and screamed out that her husband  

was cutting off their children's heads. A neighbour soon came to her assistance, and  

when a light was procured the monster was found standing in the middle of the house- 

place with a razor in his hand. When asked what he had been doing, he replied coolly:  

"Nothing yet: I have only killed three of them!" On their going upstairs a most  

dreadful spectacle presented itself: the head of one of the boys was very nearly  

severed from his body, and the bellies of both were partly cut and partly ripped open,  

and the bowels torn completely out and thrown on the floor. Allen made no attempt to  

escape, and was taken without resistance. He said that it was his intention to have  

murdered his wife and all her children, and then to have put an end to himself. He  

professed his intention also to have murdered an old woman who lay bedridden in the  

same house. An inquest was held on the bodies of the three children, before Mr Hand,  

coroner of Uttoxeter, when he confessed his guilt, but without expressing any  

contrition. In answer to other interrogations he promised to confess something that  

had lain heavy on his mind; and Mr Hand, supposing it might relate to a crime he had  

heretofore committed, caused him to be examined in the presence of other gentlemen,  

when he told an incoherent story of a ghost, in the shape of a horse, having, about four  

years ago, enticed him into a stable, where it drew blood from him, and then flew into  

the sky. With respect to the murder of his children, he observed to the coroner, with  

apparent unconcern, that he supposed it was as bad a case as ever he had heard of. 

The horrid circumstances of these murders were fully proved, and he was  

convicted, and suffered the final sentence of the law.

MARTHA ALDEN  

Executed, 31st of July, 1807, for murdering her Husband in a Cottage near  

Attleborough, Norfolk

THE trial of Martha Alden on a charge of murder came on at the Summer  

Assizes for the county of Norfolk, in the year 1807. Samuel Alden, the victim of her  

brutality, was a husbandman, occupying a small cottage near Attleborough, in that  

county, and was accounted a quiet, industrious character. 

Edmund Draper stated that on Saturday, the 18th of July, he was in company  

with the deceased at the White Horse public-house at Attleborough; that the prisoner,  

who was present when witness and the deceased met, said to them she was going  

home with her child, and went away. Witness sat drinking with Alden till nearly  

twelve o'clock, chatting with the wife of the publican; he then accompanied the  

deceased to his house, which lay on the way to his own home. Witness stated that he  

himself was perfectly sober at the time; that Alden, however, was rather fresh, but  

sober enough to walk, staggering a little. No ill words passed between the deceased  

and the prisoner in his presence. He proceeded home in the direction of Thetford, and  

saw no one on the road. Alden's house consisted of a kitchen and bedroom, both on  

the same floor, and separated from each other by a small narrow passage. He saw no  

one in the house except the prisoner and the deceased, and a little boy about seven  

years old. 

Charles Hill, of Attleborough, stated that on the morning of Sunday, the 19th,  

he rose between two and three o'clock to go on a journey to Shelf Anger Hall, about  

ten miles from Attleborough, to see a daughter. When he approached the deceased's  

house he saw the door open, and the prisoner was standing within a few yards of the  

door; this was at nearly three o'clock in the morning. The prisoner accosted the  

witness, by saying she could not think what smart young man it was who was coming  

down the common. The witness replied: "Martha, what the devil are you up to at this  

time of the morning?" She said she had been down to the pit in her garden for some  

water; this garden was on the opposite side of the road to the house. 

Sarah Leeder, widow, of Attleborough, stated that on Monday night, the 20th  

of July, the prisoner came to her house to borrow a spade, for a neighbour's sow had  

broken into her garden and rooted up her potatoes. The witness lent her one, which  

was marked J.H., and she went away with it. On the following evening (Tuesday,  

21st), about eleven o'clock, she went out of her house upon the common to look for  

some ducks she had missed, and found them in a small pit; near this pit there was  

another of a larger size, beside a place called Wright's Plantation. In this greater pit, or  

pond, she saw something lying which attracted her attention; she went to the edge of  

the pond and touched it with a stick, upon which it sank and rose again; but the place,  

though the moon shone, was shaded, and she could not discover what it was, so went  

home for the night. The next morning (Wednesday, 22nd), however, the witness  

returned to the spot, and again touched the substance with a stick, which still lay  

almost covered with water; she then, to her great terror, saw the two hands of a man  

appear, with the arms of a shirt stained with blood. She instantly concluded that a  

murdered man had been thrown in there, and called to a lad to go and acquaint the  

neighbourhood with the circumstances, and went back in great alarm to her own  

house. In a quarter of an hour she returned again to the pond, and found that in her  

absence the body had been taken out. She then knew it to be the body of Samuel  

Alden. His face was dreadfully chopped, and his head cut very nearly off. The body  

was put into a cart and carried to the house of the deceased. The witness afterwards  

went to look for her spade, and found it standing by the side of a hole, which she  

described as looking like a grave, dug in the ditch which surrounded Alden's garden.  

She further stated that this hole was open, not very deep, and that she saw blood lying  

near it. 

Edward Rush stated that on Wednesday morning (the 22nd of July), by order  

of the constable of Attleborough parish, he searched the prisoner's residence. In a dark  

chamber he found a bill-hook, which on examination appeared to have blood on its  

handle, and also on the blade, but looked as if it had been washed. He also confirmed  

the statement of a preceding witness as to the state of the bedroom in the house of the  

deceased, and described its dimensions to be about seven feet by ten. 

Mary Orvice stated that she had been acquainted with the prisoner for some  

time, and had frequently been at her house. On Sunday (the 19th) the prisoner asked  

her to go with her to her house. When she got there, the prisoner said to her: "I have  

killed my husband"; and, taking her into the bedroom, showed her the body lying on  

the bed, quite dead, with the wounds as before described; she also saw a hook lying  

on the floor with blood on it. When the hook was shown to her in court, she said it  

was the very same she had then seen. The prisoner then produced a common corn  

sack, and, at her request, the witness held it whilst the prisoner put the body into it;  

the prisoner then carried the body from the bedroom, through the passage and kitchen,  

out of the house, across the road to the ditch surrounding the garden, and left it there,  

after throwing some mould over it. The witness then left the prisoner and went to  

Larling. The prisoner slept that night at the witness's father's house. On the following  

night (the 20th), between nine and ten o'clock, the witness was again in the company  

of the prisoner, and saw her remove the body of her husband (who was a small man)  

from the ditch in the garden to the pit on the common, dragging it herself along the  

ground in the sack; and when she arrived at the pit, the prisoner shot the body into it  

out of the sack, which she afterwards carried away with her. The deceased had a shirt  

and slop on. The next morning (Tuesday) the witness went to the prisoner's house and  

assisted in cleaning it up, taking some warm water and washing and scraping the wall  

next the bed. The prisoner bade the witness to be sure not to say a word about the  

matter; for, if she did, she (the witness) would certainly be hanged. Upon being  

questioned to that effect by the Judge, this witness further stated that she had told the  

story to her father on the Tuesday night, but to nobody else. 

The learned judge then summed up the evidence in a very full and able  

manner. On the subject of Mary Orvice's testimony, his Lordship remarked that it  

certainly came under great suspicion, as being that of an accessory to the attempted  

concealment of the murder. Viewing it in that light, therefore, and taking it separately,  

it was to be received with extreme caution; but if it should be found, in most material  

facts, to agree with and corroborate the successive statements of the other witnesses,  

whose declarations did not labour under those disadvantages, the jury were then to  

give it due weight and avail themselves of the information which it threw on the  

transaction. 

The jury consulted together for a short time, and found the prisoner guilty.  

Whereupon the learned judge proceeded to pass upon her the awful sentence of the  

law; which was, that on Friday she should be drawn on a hurdle to the place of  

execution, there to be hanged by the neck till she was dead, and her body afterwards  

to be dissected. She confessed the crime for which she was to suffer, and  

acknowledged that the girl (Orvice) had no concern whatever in the murder, but only  

assisted, at her request, in putting the body of her husband into the sack.  

On Friday, 31st of July, at twelve o'clock, this unhappy female was drawn on a  

hurdle, and executed on the castle hill, pursuant to her sentence, in presence of an  

immense concourse of spectators. She behaved at the fatal tree with the decency  

becoming her awful situation

ROBERT POWELL  

A Starving Fortune-Teller, who was convicted by the Middlesex Magistrates  

of being a Rogue and Vagabond, 1807

THOUGH the offence committed by this unfortunate was neither of great  

magnitude nor fraught with contumacy against the penal laws of the land, yet there is  

in his fate something so singularly curious, so strongly tinctured with eccentricity, that  

we have deemed it fit subject-matter for the pages of our criminal chronology. It is,  

however, merely the contemptible case of one of those petty deceptive cheats, yclept  

"fortune-tellers"; but, as the prisoner deemed himself-an "astrologer." 

This "seer," Robert Powell, was charged before the Middlesex magistrates, in  

terms extremely degrading to the high and mysterious dignity of a sideral professor,  

with being a rogue, vagabond and impostor, and obtaining money under false and  

fraudulent pretences from one Thomas Barnes, a footman in the service of Surgeon  

Blair, of Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, and taking from him two shillings and  

sixpence under pretences of telling him the destinies of a female fellow-servant, by  

means of his skill in astrological divination. 

The nature of the offence and the pia fraus, or ingenious trap, by which the  

disciple of Zoroaster was caught in the midst of his sorceries were briefly as follows.  

This descendant of the Magi, born to illuminate the world by promulgating the will of  

the stars and the high behests of fate, had of course no wish to conceal his person, his  

avocations or his residence: on the contrary, he resolved to announce his  

qualifications in the form of a printed handbill, and to distribute the manifesto for the  

information of the world. 

One of those bills was dropped down the area of Mr Blair's house, in Great  

Russell Street; it was found by his footman, or factotum, and laid on the breakfast- 

table, with the newspapers of the morning, as a morceau of novelty, for his  

amusement; of which, as is sometimes said in an august assembly, to prevent  

mistakes, we have obtained the following copy: 

Sciential Instructions  

A. B.  

PROFESSOR OF THE SIDERAL SCIENCE  

No. 5 SUTTON STREET, SOHO SQUARE  

Teaches Astrology and Calculating Nativities, with the most Precise Accuracy, at 2s.  

6d. per Lesson  

APPLICATION TO THE COURTEOUS READER 

WHO will not praise and admire the glory of the sun and stars, and the frame  

of heaven, and not wish to know their influence and operation upon earth? For fear of  

the ridicule of revilers and vilifiers of the science, who understand it not, and so deem  

it fraud and iniquity. Oh, happy world! if they were not a hundred thousand times  

more hurt by the baits of pleasure, honour, pride, authority, arrogance, extortion,  

envy, covetousness and cruelty! and thereby make or ruin themselves, by grasping  

and wantonness; and others by deception, craft, fraud and villainy! but that is all  

gilded over, and so such pass for good respectable people. Some may start and rave at  

this, but who can confute the truth of it? 

Can any suppose that the stars, the celestial bodies, are designed for no other  

purpose than for us to look at heedlessly, as being of no worth, nor having any effect  

on us? Daily experience, and the most learned of all ages, have proved it, and testified  

it to us that they have, and in a great degree do determine our fate; which I and all  

other professors have experienced and proved in thousands of different nativities.  

Who then, by means of such a noble and inestimable science, would not wish for a  

precognition of the events of their most sanguine hopes and fears, which alternately  

alleviate or depress their minds? Is the praising and magnifying a work a wrong to the  

workman? Is knowing, manifesting and experiencing, the power and operations of the  

created, wronging or dishonouring the Creator? Though this be a persecuted science,  

yet happy world I how blest a state, if nothing worse was practised in it! 

No letters, unless post paid, will be taken in. 

________________ 

Mr Blair concerted, with some of the agents of the Society for the Suppression  

of Vice, a stratagem to entrap the sideral professor; in the furtherance of which he  

dictated to his footman a letter to the "seer" expressive of a wish to know the future  

destinies of his fellow-servant, the cook-maid, and what sort of husband the  

constellations had, in their benign influence, assigned her. With this letter the footman  

set out for No. 5 Sutton Street, Soho, where he found the "seer" had, for the  

convenience of prompt intercourse, chosen his habitation as near the stars as the roof  

of the mansion would admit. In fact, he found him in that part of the house which  

Juvenal facetiously describes "Ubi reddunt, ova Columbae," otherwise "the attic  

storey," by some termed "the roost of genius," or "the first floor down the chimney."  

Here the footman announced the object of his embassy, delivered his credentials, and  

was told by the "seer" that he could certainly give him an answer now, "by word of  

mouth"; but if he would call next day he should be better prepared, as in the meantime  

he could consult the stars, and have for him a written answer. 

The footman retired, and returned next morning, received a written response,  

gave to the "seer" the usual donation of half-a-crown, previously marked, which sum  

he figured upon the answer, and the receipt of which the unsuspecting sage  

acknowledged by his signature. 

With this proof of his diligence he returned to his master, and was further  

directed to go and state the matter in due form to the magistrates. The vigilant Trott  

was, in consequence, sent tripping after the prophet. He set out at a canter, and soon  

arrived, at full gallop, at this attic mansion, where he found the sage absorbed in  

profound cogitation, casting the nativities of two plump and prurient damsels, and  

consulting the dispositions of the stars as to the disposition of the lasses, and the kind  

of sweethearts or husbands they were destined to have. Not only were the planets  

consulted, but all the eminent authorities, from Moore's Almanack up to the  

Ptolemies, which composed the "seer's" library, were shrewdly scanned on the  

subject. All the conjunctions of course were found to be copulative, and the omens  

propitious; but the unrelenting Trott entered, and proceeded to fulfil his mission. 

On searching the unfortunate sage, the identical half-crown paid him by  

Barnes was found, accompanied by two other pieces of similar value, in his pocket,  

where such coins had long been strangers; and the cabalistical chattels of his  

profession accompanied him, as the lawful spoil of the captor. 

The magistrates, before whom, it seemed, the prisoner had been more than  

once cited upon similar charges, observed that it was extremely reprehensible for a  

man like him, who possessed abilities which, by honest exertion, might obtain for him  

a creditable livelihood, thus to degrade himself to a trade of imposture and fraud upon  

the ignorant and unsuspicious orders of society. 

The wretched prisoner stood motionless and self-convicted. Aged, tall,  

meagre, ragged, filthy and careworn, his squalid looks expressed the various features  

of want and sorrow. Every line of his countenance seemed a furrow of grief and  

anguish; and, his eyes gushing with tears, in faint and trembling accents he addressed  

the magistrates. He acknowledged the truth of the charge against him, but he said that  

nothing save want and the miseries of a wretched family had driven him to adopt such  

a mode of procuring them food. If he had been able to labour he would gladly have  

swept the streets to obtain them food, but he was too feeble to gain employment, even  

in that way; he had tried every other within the scope of his capacity, but in vain. He  

could not dig, to beg he was ashamed; and even if begging, either by private  

solicitation or openly in the streets, had promised him a casual resource in the charity  

of the passing crowd, he was afraid he should thereby incur prosecution as a rogue  

and vagabond, and be consigned to imprisonment in Bridewell. Parish settlement he  

had none; and what was to be done with a miserable lunatic wife (for the moon was  

still worse to him than the stars) and three naked, famishing children? He had no  

choice but famine, theft or imposture. 

The magistrates, obviously affected by this scene, said that they felt  

themselves obliged to commit the prisoner, as he had not only been repeatedly warned  

of the consequences of his way of life, but had once before been convicted of a similar  

offence. He was therefore convicted under the Vagrant Act.

JOHN ALMOND  

Convicted at the December Sessions, 1807, of forging a Will, and executed  

before Newgate

JOHN ALMOND, aged forty-five, was an inspector of lamps for the parish of  

St James's, Westminster; from which, and another similar situation, he derived an  

income of about one hundred and fifty pounds per annum. Abraham Priddy was a  

lamplighter, living in Marlborough Row, Carnaby Market. The prisoner had lodged  

for some time at Priddy's house, and by that means became acquainted with his  

circumstances, and formed the plan of fraud for which he forfeited his life. His trial  

came on at the Old Bailey, before Mr Justice Grose, December, 1807. 

Thomas Harrison, a clerk in the Prerogative Office, Doctors' Commons, said  

that on the 11th of June the prisoner brought to the office a deed purporting to be the  

will of Abraham Priddy, by which the prisoner, who was declared in the will to be the  

testator's brother-in-law, was made his executor and residuary legatee. The will  

further stated that the said Abraham Priddy was possessed of three hundred pounds in  

the four per cents., and gave the sum of fifty pounds to his wife, and two other sums  

of fifty pounds each to two other persons, who were afterwards proved to have no  

existence. The prisoner had been formerly a clerk in the Prerogative Office, and had  

engrossed many wills, so that the witness knew his handwriting, and observed to him  

at the time that this will had been written by him; to which the prisoner replied it was.  

To this will was affixed the mark of Priddy, who, the prisoner said, was now dead.  

Everything was transacted regularly, and an attested copy of the will was received by  

the prisoner on the 12th or 13th of June. Witness acted according to the instructions of  

the prisoner, and wrote on the other side of the will, "Abraham Priddy, testator,  

formerly of Marlborough Row, Carnaby Market, and Smith's Court, Windmill Street,  

St James's, late of the hamlet of Hammersmith, died on the 10th instant." The witness  

perfectly recollected the prisoner's handwriting, though it was about twenty-three  

years since he was clerk in the same office with him, and he had never seen him write  

but once since then. 

Abraham Priddy said that he had known the prisoner sixteen years. One day he  

took the opportunity of advising him, for some trifling reason or other, not to go into  

the City to receive his dividends that half-year; to which witness replied that it was of  

no consequence to him (the prisoner) when he went. Upon witness's going into the  

City, however, some time later, the stock was gone, and was found to be transferred to  

the prisoner, who had given himself out as Priddy's executor. Witness added that he  

could neither read nor write, and had never made a will in his life. The forged will  

was now read, and the witness was asked if the prisoner was his brother-in-law; which  

was answered in the negative. Mary Priddy, wife to Abraham Priddy, said that, some  

time before this happened the prisoner had asked her, in the course of conversation,  

what stock her husband had in the bank. She told him, with great simplicity, that he  

had three hundred pounds four per cents. 

It was afterwards proved by John Rose, a stockbroker and Charles Norris, a  

clerk from the bank, that the money in the four per cents. had been transferred over to  

the prisoner, in consequence of his producing the forged will, and who, in that  

transfer, subscribed himself executor to the deceased Priddy. 

The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner guilty. On the morning  

of his execution, 20th of January, 1808, he received the Sacrament; after which he  

proceeded to the fatal platform, before the debtors' door, Old Bailey, when he was  

launched into eternity.

RICHARD OWEN  

Convicted of Cross-Dropping, and sentenced to Transportation, at the Old  

Bailey, January Sessions, 1808

THE prisoner, who had only recently returned from transportation, was  

walking in the Green Park, when he fell into conversation with an elderly lady. As  

they walked together he pretended to pick up something that lay in her way. He  

exclaimed, "What have we here?" and, opening a small packet, said, "We have found  

a prize, madam." The parcel contained a gold cross, apparently set with diamonds,  

and there was inscribed on the outside "a diamond cross." The prisoner appeared  

exceedingly rejoiced at their good fortune; and, while he was conversing upon its  

supposed worth, he accidentally observed a friend, and, after the usual salutations,  

informed him that he and the lady had picked up a diamond cross of some value, and  

were at a loss how to divide their good fortune. The friend looked at it, and undertook  

to inquire its value of a jeweller if the parties would step into some coffee-house, or  

genteel public-house, for a moment. The old lady was persuaded; and, having no  

suspicion of the cheat, agreed to go into a public-house. The friend went about his  

errand, and soon returned, saying that the jeweller had offered only forty pounds for  

the cross, but that he was confident it was worth one hundred pounds. 

The prisoner then asked the lady if she had any property about her, and  

proposed to leave the diamond cross with her, provided she could give him anything  

like an equivalent for his share. She said she had five pounds and a gold watch worth  

twenty pounds. This the prisoner proposed she should give to him, with her address,  

that he might deal honourably with her, in case the cross should not, in the opinion of  

her friends, be worth more than fifty pounds; and on the other hand, if it sold for one  

hundred pounds, that he might be enabled to claim his share. The foolish woman, who  

was the widow of a military officer, parted with her watch and five-pound note, and  

on consulting a jeweller found that the cross was made of mock diamonds, and was  

not worth more than a guinea. She also found, too late, that she had been robbed, and  

immediately gave information at the office; and from the description she gave of the  

prisoner-that of his being a tall, stout, old man, with a wig, and his general  

appearance like that of a farmer-the officers told her that if she would go with them to  

Leicester Fields they thought they could show her the individual. She did go, and the  

prisoner was apprehended in consequence of her pointing him out. Some altercation  

took place whether or not the offence constituted a felony. This objection was  

overruled, and the jury found the prisoner guilty. 

The old lady was, however, fortunate enough to get back her watch, but  

sacrificed the five-pound note to the shrine of credulity. The rogue was once more  

shipped off to Botany Bay.

WILLIAM WALKER  

A Soldier in the Middlesex Militia. Sentenced to Death for a Highway  

Robbery of Sixpence and a Penny-Piece, but reprieved at the Request of his  

Victim, February, 1808

IN the February sessions of 1808 this disgraceful soldier was capitally indicted  

for assaulting Thomas Oldfield on the highway, putting him in fear, and forcibly  

taking from his person a sixpence and a penny-piece, his property. 

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, who was an athletic old man,  

that on the 10th of October, 1807, between nine and ten o'clock at night, he was  

passing over the fields from Pentonville towards town, when a man came up to him  

and asked him, with great apparent good nature, whether he had any money in his  

pocket. The prosecutor demanded why he asked the question; upon which the prisoner  

immediately changed his voice, and, with an oath, demanded his money. The  

prosecutor pulled from his pocket a sixpence and a penny and gave it to the assailant.  

As he took it he looked downwards, and asked how much there was. At that instant  

the prosecutor struck him a blow on his side, and he reeled from him. The prosecutor  

at the same moment perceived the prisoner clap his hand to his side, as if he were  

going to draw his side-arms; and, springing forward, he struck him another blow in  

his face, which brought him to the ground. He then jumped upon him, and kept  

struggling with him on the ground for nearly five minutes. The soldier then entreated  

he might be permitted to get up. The prosecutor replied he should get up, provided he  

delivered up his bayonet. This was assented to, and he gave up his side-arms;  

whereupon the prosecutor permitted him to get upon his legs. The prosecutor  

observed, at the same time, that if he attempted to come near him he was a dead man,  

as he was determined to run him through. 

Just as the individual was making off, the prosecutor heard someone come up,  

and it was rather a curious coincidence that the person who came to his assistance  

should be his own son. The prosecutor, by this time exhausted by his exertions and his  

fears, had just strength enough left to exclaim: "That scoundrel has robbed me, and  

probably would have done me some mischief had I not overpowered him!" 

The thief then made off, but the son followed him; he failed in the pursuit, and  

the thief effected his escape. The prosecutor, however, had retained the bayonet, and  

went the next day to the headquarters of the regiment. Having told his story, it was  

recollected that the prisoner had that morning appeared on parade with his face very  

much bruised and swelled. The bayonet, too, was proved to be the prisoner's, marked  

"31," and was more strongly corroborated by his being without one. The prisoner was  

accordingly apprehended, and, having no defence to set up against the case made out  

on the part of the prosecution, he was found guilty and sentenced to death. 

The prosecutor, with equal eccentricity and humanity, told the judge that he  

hoped he would not hang the prisoner, and that if he was sent out of the country he  

should be satisfied-which the Court assented to.

THOMAS SIMMONS  

Executed at Hertford, 7th of March, 1808, for a Double Murder

THOMAS SIMMONS was not more than nineteen years of age, and of a  

clownish appearance. His father was a shoemaker by trade, but followed the plough  

some years before his death. 

At an early age Thomas was taken into Mr Boreham's family, where he lived  

some years, till, by his brutish behaviour in several instances, they were under the  

necessity of discharging him; after which he worked at Messrs Christie & Co.,  

brewers. 

Mr Boreham, a very old gentleman, afflicted by the palsy, had been many  

years a resident at Hoddesdon; his house was on the declivity of the hill, beyond that  

town, about two hundred yards from the market-house. He had four daughters: one of  

them was the wife of Mr Warner, brass-founder, of the Crescent, Kingsland Road, and  

also of the Crescent, Jewin Street. Mrs Warner had been on a visit to her parents for  

several days. On Tuesday evening, 20th of October, 1807, Mrs Hummerstone, who  

superintended, as housekeeper, the business of the Black Lion Inn, at Hoddesdon, for  

Mr Batty, the proprietor, was also at Mr Boreham's house, in consequence of an  

invitation to spend the evening with the family. The company had assembled in the  

parlour, where were Mr Boreham, his wife, and his four daughters, Anne, Elizabeth,  

Sarah, and Mrs Warner. About a quarter past nine this party were alarmed by a very  

loud voice at the back of the house. It proceeded from some person in dispute with the  

servant-woman, Elizabeth Harris, and who was insisting to get into the house. The  

person proved to be Thomas Simmons, who, it seems, had, whilst in the family, paid  

his addresses to the servant, Elizabeth Harris, who was many years older than himself;  

but the symptoms of a ferocious and ungovernable temper, which he had frequently  

displayed, had induced his mistress to dissuade the woman from any connection with  

him; and his violent disposition had led also to his dismissal from this family. He had  

been heard to vow vengeance against Elizabeth Harris and the eldest Miss Boreham;  

and on Tuesday night he made his way to the farmyard, and from thence into an  

interior court, called the stone-yard. 

Elizabeth Harris, on seeing his approach, retired within the scullery, and shut  

the door against him. He demanded admittance, which she refused. High words  

accordingly arose, and he plunged his hand, armed with a knife, through a lattice  

window at her, but missed his aim. This noise alarmed the company in the parlour, or  

keeping-room, as it was called. Mrs Hummerstone was the first to come forth, in the  

hope of being able to intimidate and send away the disturber; but just as she reached  

the back door, leading from the parlour to the stone-yard, Simmons, who was  

proceeding to enter the house that way, met her, and with his knife stabbed her in the  

jugular artery; he then pulled the knife forward, and laid open her throat on the left  

side. She ran forward, as is supposed, for the purpose of alarming the neighbourhood,  

but fell, and rose no more. 

The murderer pursued his sanguinary purpose, and, rushing into the parlour,  

raised and brandished his bloodstained knife, swearing a dreadful oath that he would  

give it them all. Mrs Warner was the person next him, and, without giving her time to  

rise from her chair, he gave her so many stabs in the jugular vein, and about her neck  

and breast, that she fell from her chair, covered with streams of blood, and expired.  

Fortunately Miss Anne Boreham had been upstairs immediately previous to the  

commencement of this horrid business; and her sisters, Elizabeth and Sarah, terrified  

at the horrors they saw, ran upstairs too, for safety. 

The villain next attacked the aged Mrs Boreham by a similar aim at her jugular  

artery, but missed the point, and wounded her deep in the neck, though not mortally.  

While the poor old gentleman was making his way towards the kitchen, where the  

servant-maid was, the miscreant, in endeavouring to reach the same place, upset him,  

and then endeavoured to stab the servant in the throat; she struggled with him, caught  

at the knife, and was wounded severely in the hand and arm. The knife fell in the  

struggle. She, however, got out at the back door and made her way into the street,  

where, by her screams of "murder," she alarmed the neighbourhood. The poor people  

residing near the house were all in their beds, but the whole town was soon alarmed. 

The murderer sought to conceal himself, but after some search he was  

discovered in a cow-crib. He was immediately made prisoner, and brought to the Bell  

ale-house, where he was bound and handcuffed until morning, and was actually on the  

point of death, from the tightness of his ligatures, which had nearly stopped the  

circulation, when Mr Fairfax, of the Black Bull Inn, in the town, interfered, cut the  

ligatures, and thereby prevented a death too summary for the cause of public justice. 

The prisoner was committed to Hertford jail, to abide his trial, which  

commenced, before Mr Justice Heath, on Friday, 4th of March. 

As Mr Boreham's family, who were all Quakers, refused to prosecute on  

behalf of Mrs Warner, the prisoner was tried on only one indictment-viz. for the  

murder of Mrs Hummerstone-at the instance of Mr W. White and Mr B. Fairfax, of  

the Bull Inn, Hoddesdon, and Mr J. Brown, churchwarden of that place. 

Evidence having been given, the jury gave the verdict of guilty; and the  

learned judge pronounced the dreadful sentence of the law. The sentence seemed to  

affect the prisoner very little; he walked from the bar with great coolness and  

indifference, and suffered the punishment denounced for his crime on the 7th of  

March, 1808.

JOHN SHEPHERD  

Convicted, at Lancaster, of a Riot and setting fire to the Prison, June, 1808

JOHN SHEPHERD was indicted with John Turner for having, with divers  

persons unknown, riotously assembled at Rochdale, and burned the prison, on the 1st  

of July, 1808. 

Mr Park observed that it was no merit in the prisoners that they escaped a  

capital offence, but as no person resided in the prison it was not a dwelling-house.  

Circumstances had come to his knowledge, and those entrusted with the management  

of those trials for the Crown, respecting John Turner, they having it from undoubted  

authority that he had not gone among the mob with any improper motive, but had  

remained in company with some of them from mere idle curiosity; and as he was not a  

weaver they had agreed to admit him an evidence. 

John Kershaw, an inhabitant of Rochdale, deposed that at noon, on the 1st of  

June, the town was extremely agitated by the entrance of a mob, to the number of  

about two hundred, which increased in the course of the day to about one thousand.  

Soon after they entered the town, one of them mounted on a large stone and  

harangued the mob; he could not hear what he said, but it appeared to please the mob  

in general, as they huzzaed several times. Dr Drake and Mr Entwistle, the magistrates,  

who in general conducted the business of that part of the county, came into the town  

and addressed the mob, who behaved very civilly and respectfully to the magistrates,  

but refused to disperse. The magistrates, in consequence, went to the house where  

they usually transacted their business, and swore in the witness, and about two  

hundred others, special constables. Two-thirds of them were, in the course of the day  

and night, maimed or bruised, by stones being thrown at them, and other violence  

exercised towards them. The rioters entered the peaceable weavers' houses and  

forcibly took away their shuttles. The special constables succeeded in securing some  

shuttles from the rioters, and deposited them, in the prison for safety, and they took  

five or six of the rioters before the magistrates. However, as they were conveying  

them to the prison they were rescued. 

The windows of the room where the magistrates were sitting were broken with  

large stones, the stones being intended to injure the manufacturers of the town and  

neighbourhood, who had all resorted to the magistrates' room for safety, and not  

intended for the magistrates. The magistrates remained in the town till seven o'clock:  

at their departure the prisoners and others of the mob pulled off their hats to them, and  

behaved very respectfully. Soon after the magistrates were gone they behaved in a  

very outrageous manner. They attacked the prison-in consequence of a number of  

shuttles being deposited in it for safety-the doors of which had been supposed to be  

impenetrable, and set it on fire, which was understood to be also impossible, so much  

of it being stone. They, however, contrived to demolish it so much that it was now  

merely ruinous walls. After they had set the prison on fire they said they would go to  

the New Hall, the residence of Mr James Royds, one of the principal manufacturers, if  

he did not give them some money. 

John Whitehead, who resides not two miles off Rochdale, said the prisoners  

called at his house at four o'clock the following morning, much intoxicated, and said  

they had got money at Rochdale, and wanted him to help them to spend it; they told  

him how things were going on there, and said the prison was on fire. The witness told  

them they would all be hanged. Shepherd said his hands had set it on fire, and showed  

a piece of lead, which he said was part of it. 

Turner, who was admitted an evidence, said he was standing with Shepherd,  

opposite the prison, when it was on fire, where he observed that if any man put the  

fire out he would endanger his life. Shepherd told him he had got five pounds from  

Mr Royds; they went to Mr Deardon's for money, where a guinea was thrown out to  

them. At one time Shepherd asked if any man would go with him to set Charles Trot's  

manufactory on fire. 

The jury found Shepherd guilty. He was imprisoned.

HECTOR CAMPBELL, ESQ.  

Fined and imprisoned, in the Year 1808, for acting as a Physician without a  

Licence

MR CAMPBELL, though convicted of practising without the leave of the  

College of Physicians, had been a surgeon in the navy, was a man of science and skill,  

and, but for a misplaced pride, might have readily passed his examination and  

obtained his diploma. 

He was indicted by the Royal College of Physicians, in Warwick Lane, for  

unlawfully prescribing and practising physic, etc., in London, and within seven miles  

round the same, he not having been examined by the College with regard to his skill,  

or being licensed by them to practise these arts. In order to bottom the indictment, the  

charter constituting the Royal College of Physicians by Charles II was produced and  

read, and various details of the laws and by-laws of the college were stated and  

proved. By one of these by-laws, confirmed by the charter, as also by an Act of the  

legislature, any person who presumed to exercise the calling of a physician, etc., he  

not being licensed so as to exercise that vocation, was to be summoned by a summons  

and monition to appear before the College. The defendant, having carried on these arts  

for some time, was at length summoned to appear before the censor of the College, on  

the 6th of March. This summons was issued by Dr Harvey, the registrar, by authority  

of the censors; but the defendant did not appear. 

Dr Harvey deposed that on the 3rd of April he prepared an interdiction against  

Dr Campbell, by authority of the Board, which was signed by all its members on that  

day. He was a witness to the signature of the interdiction, and delivered it to Miller,  

the beadle. The whole Board, he said, did not sign in cases of summonses, but in those  

of interdictions they did. 

Dr Pitcairn, one of the censors, was present when the defendant appeared  

before the College. The defendant seemed to plume himself on the eminence to which  

he said he had attained in the profession. He called himself Dr Campbell, and wrote  

prescriptions in the style in which physicians generally do. Campbell said the College  

had not acted impartially towards him, and had been impelled to resist him by  

unworthy motives; he added that two very eminent physicians had forced themselves  

into the profession by paying sums of money. On this the president desired Mr  

Campbell to be silent, and to withdraw, which the defendant refused to do, stating he  

had not come before the College unadvisedly, as he had consulted his lawyer on what  

conduct he ought to pursue. The defendant clapped his hand in his pocket and asked  

what was to pay; and, just before leaving the room, he was asked by the president  

whether he felt inclined to relinquish the practice of surgery and medicine he then  

carried on. The defendant replied in the negative; when he was told by the president  

that legal measures would, to a certainty, be resorted to in order to compel him so to  

do. The defendant made a most gross reply, distinguishing the Board as a set of  

scoundrels. 

Dr Lambe proved that he had received a letter from the defendant after the  

above transaction, and Sir Lucas Pepys deposed that the letter had been handed over  

to him by Dr Lambe. The letter was expressive of the sorrow and contrition of the  

defendant for the intemperate expressions he had made use of to the College, and  

concluded with offering a most humble apology for his error. 

Mr Nolan addressed the jury on the part of the defendant. He observed that if  

Dr Campbell had got the advice of a counsel, the advice he had used was false,  

erroneous and unwise. The defendant, it was his duty to state, had practised from the  

age of eighteen as a surgeon, with great credit and fame to himself and universal  

benefit to the public. This was in the country; and the defendant's anxiety for science  

and for extended knowledge in his profession induced him to take up his residence in  

the metropolis as a medical practitioner. He was summoned before the Royal College  

of Physicians, and in answer to these summonses he wrote a letter to Dr Harvey, civil  

and respectful in the extreme. He received an answer from the doctor in his capacity  

as an individual, not in his official character; but upon that it was unnecessary for him  

to enlarge. It was his object here to state the feelings of Dr Campbell, when he  

received a letter which irritated his mind, as a man and a gentleman. To this irritability  

in the defendant's temper was attributable all that followed. His mind had been broken  

by what he conceived to be asperity on the part of the College, and he so far forgot  

himself as to utter the offensive words described by Dr Pitcairn. The letter, however,  

which had been sent by Dr Campbell as an expiation of his offence was couched in  

such terms that pity came to his aid, and he understood that learned body did not mean  

to press for judgment before the Court should the defendant be convicted. Dr  

Campbell had done all that frail man could do. He had confessed his error, and had  

made a most befitting and becoming apology. 

Lord Ellenborough, in his address to the jury, said it was impossible for him to  

anticipate what might be the effect of an appeal to the Court by the Royal College of  

Physicians, when the defendant might be brought up for judgment, in his behalf. That  

was not the point at issue: the jury had to consider whether, under all the  

circumstances of the case, they were convinced that the general counts and allegations  

in the indictment were made out. Were they convinced of that, they would find the  

defendant guilty; if, on the contrary, they entertained any reasonable doubt, they  

would give the defendant all the benefit of those doubts. The jury found the defendant  

guilty, and he was ordered to be imprisoned, and to pay a fine.

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, ESQ.  

Brevet-Major in the Army, and a Captain in the 21st Regiment of Foot.  

Executed 24th of August, 1808, at Armagh, in Ireland, for murdering a  

Brother Official, whom he killed in a Duel

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL was tried at the Armagh Assizes, 13th of August,  

1808, for the wilful and felonious murder of Alexander Boyd, captain in the same  

regiment, by shooting him with a pistol bullet, on the 23rd of June, 1808, in the  

county of Armagh, in the kingdom of Ireland. This murder was committed in a duel. 

The first witness called was George Adams, who deposed that about nine in  

the evening of the 23rd of June he was sent for in great haste to the deceased, Captain  

Boyd, who had since died of a wound he had received by a pistol bullet, which had  

penetrated the extremity of the four false ribs and lodged in the cavity of the belly.  

This wound, he could take upon himself to say, was the cause of his death. He was  

sitting on a chair vomiting blood when witness was sent for; he lived about eighteen  

hours afterwards. Witness stayed with him till he died. He was in great pain, and  

tumbled and tossed about in the most extreme agitation. Witness conceived his wound  

to be mortal from the first moment he examined it. The witness then stated the  

circumstances which led to the duel. 

John Hoey, mess-waiter to the 21st Regiment, swore that he went with a  

message from Major Campbell to Captain Boyd, by means of which they met. 

Lieutenant Macpherson, surgeon, Nice, and others, proved the dying words of  

Captain Boyd. 

John Greenhill was produced to prove that Major Campbell had had time to  

cool after the altercation had taken place, inasmuch as he went home, drank tea with  

his family, and gave him a box to leave with Lieutenant Hall before the affair took  

place. 

The defence set up was merely as to the character of the prisoner for humanity,  

peaceful conduct and proper behaviour: to this several officers of the highest rank  

were produced, who vouched for it to the fullest extent-namely, Colonel Paterson, of  

the 21st Regiment, General Campbell, General Graham Stirling, Captain Macpherson,  

Captain Menzies, Colonel Gray, and many others. The learned judge, in his charge,  

briefly summed up the main points, and thus concluded: "If you are of opinion either  

that the provocation, which I have mentioned to you, was too slight to excite that  

violence of passion which the law requires for manslaughter, or that, be the passion  

and the provocation what it might, still that the prisoner had time to cool, and return to  

his reason-in either of these cases you are bound upon your oaths to find the prisoner  

guilty of murder. There is still another point for your serious consideration. It has  

been correctly stated to you by the counsel that there is a thing called the point of  

honour-a principle totally false in itself, and unrecognised both by law and morality,  

but which, from its practical importance and the mischief attending any disregard of it  

to the individual concerned, and particularly to a military individual, has usually been  

taken into consideration by juries, and admitted as a kind of extenuation. But in all  

such cases, gentlemen of the jury, there have been, and there must be, certain grounds  

for such indulgent consideration-such departure from the letter and spirit of the law.  

In the first place, the provocation must be great; in the second place, there must be a  

perfectly fair dealing-the contract, to oppose life to life, must be perfect on both sides,  

the consent of both must be full; neither of them must be forced into the field; and  

thirdly, there must be something of a necessity, a compulsion, to give and take the  

meeting; the consequence of refusing it being the loss of reputation, and there being  

no means of honourable reconciliation left. Let me not be mistaken on this serious  

point. I am not justifying duelling; I am only stating those circumstances of  

extenuation which are the only grounds that can justify a jury in dispensing with the  

letter of the law. You have to consider, therefore, gentlemen of the jury, whether this  

case has these circumstances of extenuation. You must here recall to your minds the  

words of the deceased Captain Boyd: 'You have hurried me: I wanted you to wait and  

have friends. Campbell, you are a bad man.' These words are very important, and if  

you deem them sufficiently proved they certainly do away with all extenuation. If you  

think them proved, the prisoner is most clearly guilty of murder." 

The jury then retired, and, after remaining about half-an-hour out of court,  

returned with their verdict-guilty of murder; but recommended him to mercy on the  

score of character only. Sentence of death was immediately passed on the unfortunate  

gentleman, and he was ordered for execution on the Monday; but, in consequence of  

the recommendation of the jury, was respited till the Wednesday se'nnight. In the  

meantime every effort was made by the friends of the unfortunate man to procure the  

Royal mercy. The respite expired on the 23rd of August, and an order was sent from  

Dublin Castle to Armagh for the execution of the unfortunate gentleman on the 24th.  

His deportment during the whole of the melancholy interval between his  

condemnation and the day of his execution was manly but penitent, and such as  

became a Christian towards his approaching dissolution. When he was informed that  

all efforts to procure a pardon had failed he was only anxious for the immediate  

execution of the sentence. He had repeatedly implored that he might be shot; but as  

this was not suitable to the forms of the common law his entreaties were of course  

without success. 

He was led out for execution on Wednesday, the 24th of August, just as the  

clock struck twelve. A vast crowd had collected around the scene of the catastrophe.  

He surveyed them a moment, then turned his head towards heaven with a look of  

prayer. As soon as he appeared, the whole of the attending guards, and such of the  

soldiery as were spectators, took off their caps; upon which the Major saluted them in  

turn. This spectacle was truly distressing, and tears and shrieks burst from several  

parts of the crowd. When the executioner approached to fix the cord, Major Campbell  

again looked up to heaven. There was now the most profound silence. The  

executioner seemed paralysed whilst performing this last act of his duty. There was  

scarcely a dry eye out of so many thousands assembled. The crowd seemed  

thunderstruck when the unfortunate gentleman was at length turned off. After hanging  

the usual time the body was put into a hearse which was waiting.

JAMES WOOD  

Convicted at the Cumberland Summer Assizes, 1808, and executed for a  

Double Murder

ON the 24th of August, 1808, James Wood was put to the bar, charged with  

the wilful murder of Margaret Smith, wife of Thomas Smith, weaver, of Longburn,  

and Jane Pattinson, of the same place, spinster. 

Thomas Smith, the prosecutor, and husband of Margaret Smith, deceased, was  

called and sworn. He said that he lived at Longburn, in the parish of Bromfield, was  

by trade a weaver, and had a small farm. James Wood, the prisoner, came to his house  

at Martinmas last, when he was at Wigton Market. His wife and wife's sister were at  

home, and the prisoner was detained by them till his return. The prisoner being a  

weaver, the prosecutor engaged him to work out a web which he had in the loom. He  

said the prisoner was a good workman, and could make about fifteen shillings a week  

when he chose to work, but seldom made much more than seven shillings, which was  

the price agreed on for his board. He continued with him in the capacity of a  

journeyman weaver from that time till 19th of January, 1808, on which day the  

prosecutor went in the morning to Wigton Market, leaving his wife, his wife's sister  

and the prisoner in the house. He (the prisoner) had on a pair of stockings and sleeved  

jacket belonging to the prosecutor, which he had obtained leave to wear, being  

himself very scanty of clothes, having only one suit. The prosecutor stated that when  

he left home, on the morning of the 19th, there were six guinea notes, a twenty- 

shilling note and a crown-piece belonging to his wife's sister; half-a-crown belonging  

to his wife, and three half-crowns and three shillings belonging to himself. The money  

was deposited in a box in the parlour, which was kept locked, and his wife had the  

key. The half-crown belonging to his wife had been in her possession a great many  

years, was of the coinage of William and Mary, and was marked with the initial letters  

of her maiden name, "M.P." 

He stated that on his return from the market, in the dusk of the evening, he was  

much surprised, the day being wet, to find the cattle out in the yard, which, at so late  

an hour, was a circumstance uncommon. As attending to the cattle was the business of  

his wife and wife's sister, he called out, but got no answer. After taking his mare out  

of the cart he went into the house, and found his sister-in-law sitting on a chair, with  

her head resting on the table. After raising her head, and placing it on his arm, he  

wiped her face, which was smeared with blood, and exclaimed: "My dear jewel, what  

is the matter with you?" He received no answer; but as she was an infirm woman, and  

Wood, the prisoner, and his wife not being present, he imagined that, his sister-in-law  

having had a fall on the floor, they had gone out, one to inform the neighbours, and  

the other for surgical assistance; consequently he was not much alarmed, as he had not  

yet perceived the state she was in, only perceiving the wound on her forehead. He  

went out and took care of the cattle but was absent not more than three or four  

minutes. When he returned he lighted a candle, and discovered his sister-in-law to be  

snoring in her blood, with which the table was covered. He raised her up, and she  

opened her eyes; he thought she knew him, and seemed anxious to speak to him. He  

perceived her little finger was nearly cut off, hanging only by a small part of the inner  

skin, became much alarmed, and concluded she had been murdered. He now became  

anxious for the safety of his wife, and, after a little searching, found her in the barn.  

She was extended on the floor, with her head bleeding much; she appeared nearly  

dead, and was speechless. He said her skull was very much cracked, and her head as  

soft as a boiled turnip. His house being at some distance from any other, he went in  

search of help to his nearest neighbours, exclaiming "Murder!" 

Mr Scott, magistrate of Annan, heard of the prisoner, on the 20th of January,  

being at the Tolbooth public-house, and went to have him secured. Robert Elliot, the  

constable of Annan, was with him. The witness (Mr Scott) asked him if he had  

purchased a watch, which he denied. He immediately ordered him to the jail, and went  

with him for the purpose of examination. He was there searched, and in the inside of  

his hat-lining a watch was found. He was then ordered to deliver up every other article  

of property of which he was possessed; when he put his hand in his waistcoat-pocket  

and took out a shilling, a watch-chain, some halfpence and a knife, and said he had  

nothing else about him. On further searching him there were found in his watch- 

pocket a crown-piece, four half-crown pieces and thirty shillings. One half-crown  

piece was of the coinage of William and Mary, marked with "M.P. 1802." All these  

articles were put in a paper in the presence of the prisoner, and seled. Two hours  

afterwards he was taken before Sir William Douglas, Messrs Greencroft, Hodgson,  

Forest and witness, Justices of the Peace, and examined. The prisoner then made a  

confession. 

The jury, after a few minutes, gave in their verdict-guilty; upon which the  

judge immediately passed sentence of death. He was executed the next day.

JAMES INWOOD  

Convicted of Manslaughter in killing William Goodman, who had been  

detected in robbing a fishery, October, 1808

AT the assizes for Hertford, 1808, James Inwood was indicted for the wilful  

murder of William Goodman, by giving him several mortal wounds with a cutlass, at  

Rickmansworth, in this county. 

Mr Common Serjeant, as counsel for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner  

rented a fishery at Ricksmansworth, and on the morning of the 6th of October the  

deceased William Goodman went to the water, no doubt for the purpose of illegally  

taking the fish. The prisoner and four other men were on the watch, and about four  

o'clock in the morning they discovered the deceased, who, finding that persons were  

there, plunged into the water and swam up the stream to a little eyot, or osier bank,  

where he evidently meant to land. At this time some of the party were on one side of  

the stream, and some on the other; and the prisoner, with a cutlass in his hand, ran  

round to the osier island. As it was dark, the rest of the party could not see what  

passed; but it seemed that the prisoner gave the deceased several wounds,  

notwithstanding which he escaped, and got home to his own cottage, when he expired  

on the following Saturday. 

Thomas Tochfield said he was a labourer at Rickmansworth. On the night  

between the 5th and 6th of October he and the prisoner, together with Davy,  

Ellingham, and two others, went to watch the fishery of the prisoner. About four  

o'clock in the morning the prisoner, who was outside the weir-house, gave them  

notice that someone was near the wheels, and desired them to wait until he should get  

to work. As soon as they thought the man had begun, they all sallied out, and the man,  

finding himself discovered, plunged into the middle of the stream and swam up  

against it. Inwood, Davy and Ellingham were on the north side of the river, and two  

others on the south side; they called to him to surrender, but he made them no answer.  

Inwood, the prisoner, said he would run round the osier island, to prevent his escaping  

that way. In a short time he heard a splashing in the water, and Inwood called out that  

the man had got him in the water, and would drown him if they did not make haste to  

assist him. They went round and found that the prisoner had been in the water, but the  

man had escaped. They then went back to the weir-house, and there they found the  

jacket which the man had left behind him, with a basket and a bag. By the jacket they  

discovered that the man in the water must have been Goodman, as they had often seen  

him wear it. 

Ellingham, Davy and Walker, other persons on the watch, gave the same  

account of the transaction; but it also appeared that the eels were confined in baskets,  

and that the deceased came not to catch fish, but to take away those already caught. 

The learned judge here observed that it made a considerable difference in the  

case, as it was clear he came to commit not merely a trespass but a felony. 

The prisoner, being called upon for his defence, said that the deceased, in  

getting up the bank, pulled him into the water, and he was afraid he would be  

drowned, and that what he did was in his own defence. 

The learned judge stated the law to the jury to be, that if anyone person  

suspected a felony about to be committed on his property, he might take to his  

assistance a peace officer, as was done here; and the wrongdoer, if he did not  

surrender when called upon, might be killed if he could not otherwise be taken. If they  

thought the prisoner could not take the deceased without killing him, it would be  

justifiable homicide. 

The jury found him guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to one  

month's imprisonment.

JOHN RYAN AND MATHEW KEARINGE  

Executed in Ireland, for Arson and Murder, 1808

AT the Lent Clonmell Assizes for the year 1808 John Ryan and Mathew  

Kearinge were indicted for the murder of David Bourke; in a second count with the  

murder of John Dougherty; in a third, with setting fire to the house of Laurence  

Bourke; and in a fourth, with maliciously firing at Laurence Bourke, with an intent to  

kill him. They pleaded the general issue. 

After the Solicitor-General had opened the case he called Laurence Bourke,  

the prosecutor, who stated that on the night of the 11th of October, between the hours  

of ten and eleven o'clock, he was informed by his servant that there were a number of  

men in arms advancing towards the house. In consequence of this information he went  

to the window and saw the prisoners, with several others, all armed, surrounding his  

house. They desired him to open the door, but he refused; and they then fired several  

shots in through the different windows. In the house were Dougherty, the deceased, a  

man who was servant to the witness, and witness's wife and child. They were armed,  

but had no ammunition but what the guns were loaded with. The prisoners and the  

party, finding they could not get into the house, set it on fire; and the witness heard  

the prisoner Ryan say: "Take it easy, boys; you will see what boltings we shall have  

by and by." The witness's wife and child then went to the window and called out to  

Ryan (who was her relation) not to burn the house, but he replied with an oath that he  

would; and a shot was fired at her, which, though it did not take effect, frightened her  

so much that she and her child fell out of the window, and were seized by the prisoner  

Kearinge; but they afterwards fortunately made their escape. The house was now  

falling in flames about the witness's head, and he therefore opened the door and ran  

out. Several shots were fired at him, but he escaped them, and made his way to the  

house of his father David Bourke. In his flight he fired his piece and killed one of  

Ryan's party. When witness arrived at his father's house he found he had gone to the  

assistance of the witness; and on returning to the place where his house stood, in  

search of his father, he found that Ryan and his party had gone, and his father's corpse  

was lying about twelve yards from the smoking ruins of his dwelling. 

Winifred Kennedy and other witnesses were examined, who corroborated the  

testimony of Bourke, and proved that the deceased John Dougherty was burned in  

Bourke's house. It was also proved that the whole of Ryan's party were entertained at  

dinner by him that day, and they all left his house armed, for the purpose of attacking  

Bourke. 

On the part of the prisoner Ryan an alibi was attempted to be proved by a  

woman who lived with him, which entirely failed; and, after a very minute charge  

from the learned judge, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against both the  

prisoners. They were executed accordingly.

THE REV. ABRAHAM ASHWORTH  

Sentenced in 1808 to Three Years' Imprisonment in Lancaster Jail, for ill- 

treating his Female Pupils

The Rev. Abraham Ashworth, a clergyman and schoolmaster, at Newton, near  

Manchester, was brought up to receive the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, at  

Westminster, in 1808, he having been convicted at the last Lancaster Assizes on two  

indictments: for assaulting Mary Ann Gillibrand and Mary Barlow, his scholars; and  

for taking such indecent liberties with their persons as greatly to hurt and injure them.  

Mr Scarlett addressed the Court in mitigation. The punishment, he said, the Court  

would feel it due to justice to inflict would be of little additional consequence to the  

defendant, as his ruin was already consummated; but he had a wife and six children,  

who had been virtuously bred and educated, and it was on their account he implored  

the Court not to inflict a punishment on the defendant that would render him  

infamous. 

Mr Serjeant Cockell said it was not his wish to bruise the bended reed, yet it  

was necessary that an example should be made of the defendant. He was a clergyman  

and a teacher of youth; and the prosecutors, who had acted from the most laudable  

motives, had abundant reasons for what they had done. They felt themselves  

irresistibly called upon to check the practices imputed to the defendant, and which  

there was too much reason for believing he had indulged in for a considerable time  

past. 

Mr Justice Grose, in passing sentence, addressed the defendant to the  

following effect: 'You have been convicted of an assault upon a child of very tender  

years; the narrative of your conduct is horrible to hear and horrible to reflect upon.  

The aggravations of your offence, I am sorry to say, are multifarious. The object of  

your brutality was a child committed to your care and instruction, and you are a  

clergyman and a teacher; a man grey in years, and possessing a large family. In  

looking to the class of misdemeanours, I know of none so horrible as the one of which  

you have been convicted. Of your guilt it is impossible to doubt, and that guilt is  

rendered more heinous by your professing to inculcate the doctrines of a religion  

which you have so little practised. Instead of protecting the child from the  

contamination of the world, you exposed her to your own licentiousness, and sought  

to corrupt her mind. I am shocked at seeing a clergyman standing to receive sentence  

for such an offence." Mr Justice Grose then proceeded to pass sentence, and adjudged  

that the defendant should be imprisoned in Lancaster Jail for three years, being  

eighteen months for each conviction. 

The court observed that the fear of a greater punishment befalling him  

prevented them from inflicting that of the pillory. [It was apprehended that he would,  

if pilloried, have there been killed by the enraged populace.]

JOHN NICHOLLS  

A Wholesale Bank-Note Forger, convicted at the January Sessions at the  

Old Bailey, 1809, and executed before Newgate

JOHN NICHOLLS, a tradesman, of Birmingham, was capitally indicted at the  

Old Bailey, January, 1809, for putting off and disposing of forged bank-notes,  

knowing them to be such, with intent to defraud the Governor and Company of the  

Bank of England. One note in particular, for five pounds, No. 7484, was charged in  

the indictment, and alleged to have been put off by the prisoner, with the guilty  

knowledge imputed to him. 

On the 25th of November an Italian, named Vincent Alessi, who lodged at the  

Lemon Tree, in the Haymarket, and affected the exterior of a foreigner of distinction,  

was detected in putting off a forged five-pound bank-note at the house of a Mr Taylor,  

a publican, in Holborn. Upon inquiry it was discovered that he had put off another  

five-pound note of the same manufacture while prosecuting an amour with a Miss  

Neads, in Soho, and that the note was detected by Mrs Dearlove, to whom it was  

afterwards tendered in payment for some wine. On searching his lodgings more  

counterfeit notes were found, and it was suspected that he was connected with some  

wholesale depredators. He was in consequence interrogated as to the fact, and he  

immediately confessed that he had bought the notes of John Nicholls, who lived at  

Birmingham, and had given him six shillings for a one-pound note, twelve shillings  

for a two-pound note and thirty shillings for a five-pound note. The solicitor of the  

bank, thinking it would best serve the ends of public justice, advised that Alessi  

should be admitted an evidence for the Crown, and through his means the wholesale  

dealer convicted. This was acceded to on the part of the Crown, and means were  

instantly taken to detect Nicholls. This could only be done through the medium of  

Alessi, who, on the 10th of December, his own detection being kept secret, wrote to  

the prisoner, informing him that he was about to depart for America, and that he  

should want twenty dozen of "candlesticks" marked No. 5, twenty-four dozen marked  

No. 1, and four dozen marked No. 2. The word "candlesticks" was understood  

between the parties to mean bank-notes, and the figure mark, the value of the notes.  

The prisoner wrote for answer that he should be in town the following week, and if  

that would be in time he begged a line to that effect. Alessi wrote a second letter,  

saying that the following week would do exceedingly well, as he did not mean to  

leave England till after Christmas. 

This interview being arranged, four police officers stationed themselves in a  

room at the Lemon Tree, adjoining that in which Alessi was to receive the prisoner, so  

as to see and hear everything that passed. The prisoner was punctual to his  

engagement. He brought with him the notes, and took six shillings in the pound in  

payment for them. When that transaction was finished Alessi put on his hat-the  

agreed signal for the officers to advance-and they rushed in and secured the prisoner.  

At first he said he had found the parcel containing the notes in the street, and then that  

he had received them from a friend at Birmingham. On searching the prisoner other  

forged notes were found, and the letter written by Alessi giving the order. The notes  

given by the prisoner to Alessi on the above occasion were precisely of the same  

manufacture as that stated in the indictment-and which Alessi said he had bought of  

the prisoner-and as those found at Alessi's lodgings. 

Alessi underwent a severe cross-examination by Mr Gurney, the prisoner's  

counsel. He said he had been backwards and forwards between Italy and England for  

the last fifteen years, but that he had been only five months and a half resident this last  

trip, during which time he had followed no other business than that of putting off  

forged banknotes. He met the prisoner at Birmingham to which place he went to  

purchase hardware, as an adventure to Spain. The prisoner told him the bank-notes in  

question would pass current out of England. He knew persons were hanged for  

forging bank-notes, but did not understand that they were for passing them off. He  

could not say whether he had betrayed the prisoner from a sense of public justice or to  

save his life. He did not think he should be hanged. He confided in hope, and it was  

the last thing a man should lose. He had seen another man at Birmingham who also  

was a dealer in counterfeit notes. 

Baron Thompson summed up the evidence, and the jury instantly found the  

prisoner guilty. 

He appeared to have made up his mind, from the time of his apprehension, for  

the worst fate that could await him. On his trial he conducted himself with great  

fortitude; and with resignation from his condemnation to the moment he was launched  

into eternity.

MARGARET CRIMES ALIAS BARRINGTON  

Executed before Newgate, 22nd of February, 1809, for taking a False Oath,  

and thereby obtaining Letters of Administration to the Effects of a Soldier

AT the Old Bailey, on Saturday, the 14th of January, 1809, Margaret  

Barrington was capitally indicted for falsely taking an oath before Dr Coote, surrogate  

to the judge of the Prerogative Court, Doctors' Commons, to obtain letters of  

administration, in order to receive twenty-four pounds, one shilling and sixpence  

prize-money due to one Thomas Rotten, late a private in the 87th Regiment, and a  

supernumerary on board the Eurus frigate at the time she made various captures in her  

voyage to the West Indies. The prisoner appeared to have been connected with two  

persons of the names of Vaughan and Knight, the former of whom was hanged, and  

the latter transported for life, for similar offences to that with which she was charged.  

In her defence she persisted in the story of her marriage to Thomas Rotten: the only  

thing she could be blamed for, she said, was presenting a fabricated certificate, which  

she confessed Knight made for her; but she was told she would not get the prize- 

money without it, and at Dumfries they kept no register of marriages. 

The judge summed up with great humanity; and the jury, after consulting  

together for some time, found a verdict of guilty. She was sentenced to death, and  

ordered for execution on the 22nd of February. 

On a motion of her counsel she was again put to the bar, and pleaded, in stay  

of execution, that she was quick with child; upon which a jury of matrons were  

empanelled, who retired with the prisoner and Mr Box, assisted by a surgeon of  

eminence, who were also sworn. After being absent about fifteen minutes they  

returned a verdict that she was not quick with child. Whereupon the recorder, in a  

most solemn and pathetic manner, exhorted the prisoner to make the best use in her  

power of the short time allotted to her in this life. The unfortunate woman was taken  

from the bar in convulsions, but next day appeared resigned to her fate.

MARY BATEMAN  

Commonly called the Yorkshire Witch, Executed for Murder

THE insidious arts practised by this woman rendered her a pest to the  

neighbourhood in which she resided, and she richly deserved that fate which  

eventually befell her. 

Mary Bateman was born of reputable parents at Aisenby in the North Riding  

of Yorkshire, in the year 1768: her father, whose name was Harker, carrying on  

business as a small farmer. As early as at the age of five years, she exhibited much of  

that sly knavery, which subsequently so extraordinarily distinguished her character;  

and many were the frauds and falsehoods, of which she was guilty, and for which she  

was punished. In the year 1780, she first quitted her father's house, to undertake the  

duties of a servant in Thirsk, but having been guilty of some peccadilloes, she  

proceeded to York in 1787. Before she had been in that city more than twelve months,  

she was detected in pilfering some trifling articles of property belonging to her  

mistress, and was compelled to run off to Leeds, without waiting either for her wages  

or her clothes. For a considerable time she remained without employment or friends,  

but at length, upon the recommendation of an acquaintance of her mother, she  

obtained an engagement in the shop of a mantua maker, in whose service she  

remained for more than three years. She then became acquainted with John Bateman,  

to whom after three weeks' courtship she was married in the year 1792. 

Within two months after her marriage, she was found to have been guilty of  

many frauds, and she only escaped prosecution by inducing her husband to move  

frequently from place to place, so as to escape apprehension; and at length poor  

Bateman, driven almost wild by the tricks of his wife, entered the supplementary  

militia. Mrs Bateman was now entirely thrown upon her own resources and, unable to  

follow any reputable trade, she in the year 1799 took up her residence in Marsh Lane,  

near Timble Bridge, Leeds, and proceeded to deal in fortune-telling and the sale of  

charms. From a long course of iniquity, carried on chiefly through the medium of the  

most wily arts, she had acquired a manner and a mode of speech peculiarly adapted to  

her new profession, and abundance of credulous victims daily presented themselves to  

her. 

It would be useless to follow this wretched woman through the subsequent  

scenes of her miserable life. Fraud and deceit were the only means by which she was  

able to carry on the war, and numerous were the impudent and heartless schemes  

which she put into operation to dupe the unhappy objects of her at tacks. Her  

character was such as to prevent her long pursuing her occupation in one position, and  

she was repeatedly compelled to change her abode until she at length took up her  

residence in Black Dog Lane, where she was apprehended. Her husband at this time  

had returned from the militia several years, and although he followed the trade to  

which he had been brought up, there can be little doubt that he shared the proceeds of  

his wife's villainies. She was indicted at York on the 18th of March 1809, for the  

wilful murder of Rebecca Perigo of Bramley in the same county, in the month of May  

in the previous year. The examination of the witnesses, who were called to support  

the case for the prosecution, showed, that Mrs Bateman resided at Leeds, and was  

well known at that place, as well as in the surrounding districts, as a 'witch', in which  

capacity she had been frequently employed to work cures of 'evil wishes', and all the  

other customary imaginary illnesses, to which the credulous lower orders at that time  

supposed themselves liable. Her name had become much celebrated in the  

neighbourhood for her successes in the arts of divining and witchcraft, and it may be  

readily concluded that her efforts in her own behalf were no less profitable. 

In the spring of 1806 Mrs Perigo, who lived with her husband at Bramley, a  

village at a short distance from Leeds, was seized with a 'flacking', or fluttering in her  

breast whenever she lay down, and applying to a quack doctor of the place, he assured  

her that it was beyond his cure, for that an 'evil wish' had been laid upon her, and that  

the arts of sorcery must be resorted to in order to effect her relief. While in this  

dilemma, she was visited by her niece, a girl named Stead, who at that time filled a  

situation as a household servant at Leeds, and who had taken advantage of the  

Whitsuntide holidays to go round to see her friends. Stead expressed her sorrow to  

find her aunt in so terrible a situation, and recommended an immediate appeal to the  

prisoner, whose powers she described as fully equal to get rid of any affection of the  

kind, whether produced by mortal or diabolical charms. An application was at once  

determined on, and Stead was employed to broach the subject to the diviner. She, in  

consequence, paid the prisoner a visit at her house in Black Dog Yard, near the bank  

at Leeds. Having acquainted her with the nature of the malady by which her aunt was  

affected, she was informed that the prisoner knew a lady who lived at Scarborough,  

and that if a flannel petticoat or some article of dress, which was worn next the skin of  

the patient, was sent to her, she would at once communicate with this lady upon the  

subject. 

On the following Tuesday, William Perigo, the husband of the deceased,  

proceeded to her house, and having handed over his wife's flannel petticoat, the  

prisoner said that she would write to Miss Blythe, who was the lady to whom she had  

alluded at Scarborough, by the same night's post, and that an answer would doubtless  

be returned by that day week, when he was to call again. On the day mentioned,  

Perigo was true to his appointment, and the prisoner produced to him a letter, saying  

that it had arrived from Miss Blythe, and that it contained directions as to what was to  

be done. After a great deal of circumlocution and mystery the letter was opened and  

read by the prisoner, and it was found that it contained an order 'that Mary Bateman  

should go to Perigo's house at Bramley, and should take with her four guinea notes,  

which were enclosed, and that she should sew them into the four corners of the bed, in  

which the diseased woman slept.' There they were to remain for eighteen months.  

Perigo was to give her four other notes of like value, to be returned to Scarborough.  

Unless all these directions were strictly attended to, the charm would be useless and  

would not work. On the 4th of August the prisoner went over to Bramley, and having  

shown the four notes, proceeded apparently to sew them up in silken bags, which she  

delivered over to Mrs Perigo to be placed in the bed. The four notes desired to be  

returned were then handed to her by Perigo and she retired, directing her dupes  

frequently to send to her house, as letters might be expected from Miss Blythe. In  

about a fortnight, another letter was produced, and it contained directions that two  

pieces of iron in the form of horse-shoes should be nailed up by the prisoner at  

Perigo's door, but that the nails should not be driven in with a hammer, but with the  

back of a pair of pincers, and that the pincers were to be sent to Scarborough, to  

remain in the custody of Miss Blythe for the eighteen months already mentioned in  

the charm. The prisoner accordingly again visited Bramley and, having nailed up the  

horse-shoes, received and carried off the pincers. 

In October the following letter was received by Perigo, bearing the signature  

of the supposed Miss Blythe. 

'My dear Friend-  

You must go down to Mary Bateman's at Leeds, on Tuesday next, and carry  

two guinea notes with you and give her them, and she will give you other two that I  

have sent to her from Scarborough, and you must buy me a small cheese about six or  

eight pound weight, and it must be of your buying, for it is for a particular use, and it  

is to be carried down to Mary Bateman's, and she will send it to me by the coach-This  

letter is to be burned when you have done reading it.' 

From this time to the month of March 1807, a great number of letters were  

received, demanding the transmission of various articles to Miss Blythe through the  

medium of the prisoner. All these were to be preserved by her until the expiration of  

the eighteen months. In the course of the same period money to the amount of near  

seventy pounds was paid over, Perigo, upon each occasion of payment, receiving silk  

bags, containing what were pretended to be coins or notes of corresponding value,  

which were to be sewn up in the bed as before. In March 1807, the following letter  

arrived. 

'My dear Friends -  

I will be obliged to you if you will let me have half-a-dozen of your china,  

three silver spoons, half-a-pound of tea, two pounds of loaf sugar, and a tea canister to  

put the tea in, or else it will not do-I durst not drink out of my own china. You must  

burn this with a candle.' 

The china, &c, not having been sent, in the month of April Miss Blythe wrote  

as follows: 

'My dear Friends --  

I will be obliged to you if you will buy me a camp bedstead, bed and bedding,  

a blanket, a pair of sheets, and a long bolster must come from your house. You need  

not buy the best feathers, common ones will do. I have laid on the floor for three  

nights, and I cannot lay on my own bed owing to the planets being so bad concerning  

your wife, and I must have one of your buying or it will not do. You must bring down  

the china, the sugar, the caddy, the three silver spoons, and the tea at the same time  

when you buy the bed, and pack them up altogether. My brother's boat will be up in a  

day or two, and I will order my brother's boatman to call for them all at Mary  

Bateman's, and you must give Mary Bateman one shilling for the boatman, and I will  

place it to your account. Your wife must burn this as soon as it is read or it will not  

do.' 

This had the desired effect, and the prisoner having called upon the Perigos,  

she accompanied them to the shops of a Mr Dobbin and a Mr Musgrave at Leeds, to  

purchase the various articles named. These were eventually bought at a cost of sixteen  

pounds, and sent to Mr Sutton's, at the Lion and Lamb Inn, Kirkgate, there to await  

the arrival of the supposed messenger. 

At the end of April, the following letter arrived: 

'My dear Friends --  

I am sorry to tell you you will take an illness in the month of May next, one or  

both of you, but I think both, but the works of God must have its course. You will  

escape the chambers of the grave; though you seem to be dead, yet you will live. Your  

wife must take half-a-pound of honey down from Bramley to Mary Bateman's at  

Leeds, and it must remain there till you go down yourself, and she will put in such  

like stuff as I have sent from Scarbro' to her, and she will put it in when you come  

down, and see her yourself, or it will not do. You must eat pudding for six days, and  

you must put in such like stuff as I have sent to Mary Bateman from Scarbro', and she  

will give your wife it, but you must not begin to eat of this pudding while I let you  

know. If ever you find yourself sickly at any time, you must take each of you a  

teaspoonful of this honey; I will remit twenty pounds to you on the 20th day of May,  

and it will pay a little of what you owe. You must bring this down to Mary Bateman's,  

and burn it at her house, when you come down next time.' 

The instructions contained in this letter were complied with, and the prisoner  

having first mixed a white powder in the honey, handed over six others of the same  

colour and description to Mrs Perigo, saying that they must be used in the precise  

manner mentioned upon them, or they would all be killed. On the 5th of May, another  

letter arrived in the following terms: 

'My dear Friends-  

You must begin to eat pudding on the 11th of May, and you must put one of  

the powders in every day as they are marked, for six days-and you must see it put in  

yourself every day or else it will not do. If you find yourself sickly at any time you  

must not have no doctor, for it will not do, and you must not let the boy that used to  

eat with you eat of that pudding for six days; and you must make only just as much as  

you can eat yourselves, if there is any left it will not do. You must keep the door fast  

as much as possible or you will be overcome by some enemy. Now think on and take  

my directions or else it will kill us all. About the 25th of May I will come to Leeds  

and send for your wife to Mary Bateman's; your wife will take me by the hand and  

say, "God bless you that I ever found you out." It has pleased God to send me into the  

world that I might destroy the works of darkness; I call them the works of darkness  

because they are dark to you-now mind what I say whatever you do, This letter must  

be burned in straw on the hearth by your wife.' 

The absurd credulity of Mr and Mrs Perigo even yet favoured the horrid  

designs of the prisoner; and, in obedience to the directions which they received, they  

began to eat the puddings on the day named. For five days they had no particular  

flavour, but upon the sixth powder being mixed, the pudding was found so nauseous  

that the former could only eat one or two mouthfuls, while his wife managed to  

swallow three or four. They were both directly seized with violent vomiting and Mrs  

Perigo, whose faith appears to have been greater than that of her husband, at once had  

recourse to the honey. Their sickness continued during the whole day, but although  

Mrs Perigo suffered the most intense torments, she positively refused to hear of a  

doctor's being sent for, lest, as she said, the charm should be broken by Miss Blythe's  

directions being opposed. The recovery of the husband, from the illness by which he  

was affected, slowly progressed; but the wife, who persisted in eating the honey,  

continued daily to lose strength. She at length expired on the 24th of May, her last  

words being a request to her husband not to be 'rash' with Mary Bateman, but to await  

the coming of the appointed time. 

Mr Chorley, a surgeon, was subsequently called in to see her body, but  

although he expressed his firm belief that the death of the deceased was caused by her  

having taken poison, and although that impression was confirmed by the circumstance  

of a cat dying immediately after it had eaten some of the pudding, no further steps  

were taken to ascertain the real cause of death, and Perigo even subsequently  

continued in communication with the prisoner. 

Upon his informing her of the death of his wife, she at once declared that it  

was attributable to her having eaten all the honey at once. Then in the beginning of  

June, he received the following letter from Miss Blythe: 

'My dear Friend-  

I am sorry to tell you that your wife should touch of those things which I  

ordered her not, and for that reason it has caused her death; it had likened to have  

killed me at Scarborough, and Mary Bateman at Leeds, and you and all, and for this  

reason, she will rise from the grave, she will stroke your face with her right hand, and  

you will lose the use of one side, but I will pray for you. I would not have you to go to  

no doctor, for it will not do. I would have you to eat and drink what you like, and you  

will be better. Now, my dear friend, take my directions, do and it will be better for  

you. Pray God bless you. Amen. Amen. You must burn this letter immediately after it  

is read.' 

Letters were also subsequently received by him, purporting to be from the  

same person, in which new demands for clothing, coals, and other articles were made,  

but at length, in the month of October 1808, two years having elapsed since the  

commencement of the charm, he thought that the time had fully arrived when, if any  

good effects were to be produced from it, they would have been apparent, and that  

therefore he was entitled to look for his money in the bed. He in consequence  

commenced a search for the little silk bags in which his notes and money had been, as  

he supposed, sewn up; but although the bags indeed were in precisely the same  

positions in which they had been placed by his deceased wife, by some unaccountable  

conjuration, the notes and gold had turned to rotten cabbage-leaves and bad farthings.  

The darkness, by which the truth had been so long obscured, now passed away, and  

having communicated with the prisoner, by a stratagem, meeting her under pretence  

of receiving from her a bottle of medicine, which was to cure him from the effects of  

the puddings which still remained, he caused her to be apprehended. Upon her house  

being searched, nearly all the property sent to the supposed Miss Blythe was found in  

her possession, and a bottle containing a liquid mixed with two powders, one of which  

proved to be oatmeal, and the other arsenic, was taken from her pocket when she was  

taken into custody. 

The rest of the evidence against the prisoner went to show that there was no  

such person as Miss Blythe living at Scarborough, and that all the letters which had  

been received by Perigo were in her own handwriting, and had been sent by her to  

Scarborough to be transmitted back again. An attempt was also proved to have been  

made by her to purchase some arsenic, at the shop of a Mr Clough, in Kirkgate, in the  

month of April 1807. But the most important testimony was that of Mr Chorley, the  

surgeon, who distinctly proved that he had analysed what remained of the pudding  

and of the contents of the honey pot, and that he found them both to contain a deadly  

poison, called corrosive sublimate of mercury, and that the symptoms exhibited by the  

deceased and her husband were such as would have arisen from the administration of  

such a drug. 

The prisoner's defence consisted of a simple denial of the charge, and the  

learned judge then proceeded to address the jury. Having stated the nature of the  

allegations made in the indictment, he said that in order to come to a conclusion as to  

the guilt of the prisoner, it was necessary that three points should be clearly made out.  

1st. That the deceased died of poison. 2nd. That that poison was administered by the  

contrivance and knowledge of the prisoner. 3rd. That it was so done for the purpose of  

occasioning the death of the deceased. A large body of evidence had been laid before  

them, to prove that the prisoner had engaged in schemes of fraud against the deceased  

and her husband, which was proved not merely by the evidence of Wm. Perigo, but by  

the testimony of other witnesses. The inference the prosecutors drew from this fraud  

was the existence of a powerful motive or temptation to commit a still greater crime,  

for the purpose of escaping the shame and punishment which must have attended the  

detection of the fraud-a fraud so gross, that it excited his surprise that any individual  

in that age and nation could be the dupe of it. But the jury should not go beyond this  

inference, and presume that, because the prisoner had been guilty of fraud, she was of  

course likely to have committed the crime of murder. That, if proved, must be shown  

by other evidence. His Lordship then proceeded to recapitulate the whole of the  

evidence, as detailed in the preceding pages, and concluded with the following  

observations. 'It is impossible not to be struck with wonder at the extraordinary  

credulity of Wm. Perigo, which neither the loss of his property, the death of his wife  

nor his own severe sufferings, could dispel. It was not until the month of October in  

the following year, that he ventured to open his his treasure, and found there what  

everyone in court must have anticipated, that he would find not a single vestige of his  

property. His evidence is laid before the jury with the observation which arises from  

this uncommon want of judgement, but his memory appears to be very retentive and  

his evidence is confirmed, and that in different parts of the narrative, by other  

witnesses, while many parts of the case do not rest upon his evidence at all. The  

illness and peculiar symptoms, which preceded the death of his wife, his own severe  

sickness, and a variety of other circumstances attending the experiments made upon  

the pudding, were proved by separate and independent testimony. It is most strange  

that, in a case of so much suspicion as it appeared to have excited at the time, the  

interment of the body should have taken place without any inquiry as to the cause of  

death, an inquiry which then would have been much less difficult, though the fact of  

the deceased having died of poison is now well established. The main question is, did  

the prisoner contrive the means to induce the deceased to take it? If she did so  

contrive the means, the intent could only be to destroy. Poison so deadly could not be  

administered with any other view. The jury will lay all the facts and circumstances  

together; and if they feel them press so strongly against the prisoner, as to induce a  

conviction of the prisoner's having procured the deceased to take poison with an intent  

to occasion her death, they will find her guilty. If they do not think the evidence  

conclusive, they will, in that case, find the prisoner not guilty.' 

The jury, after conferring for a moment, found the prisoner guilty, and the  

judge proceeded to pass sentence of death upon her, in nearly the following words: 

'Mary Bateman, you have been convicted of wilful murder by a jury who, after  

having examined your case with caution, have, constrained by the force of evidence,  

pronounced you guilty. It only remains for me to fulfil my painful duty by passing  

upon you the awful sentence of the law. After you have been so long in the situation  

in which you now stand, and harassed as your mind must be by the long detail of your  

crimes and by listening to the sufferings you have occasioned, I do not wish to add to  

your distress by saying more than my duty renders necessary. Of your guilt, there  

cannot remain a particle of doubt in the breast of anyone who has heard your case.  

You entered into a long and premeditated system of fraud, which you carried on for a  

length of time which is most astonishing, and by means which one would have  

supposed could not, in this age and nation, have been practised with success. To  

prevent a discovery of your complicated fraud, and the punishment which must have  

resulted therefrom, you deliberately contrived the death of the persons you had so  

grossly injured, and that by means of poison, a mode of destruction against which  

there is no sure protection. But your guilty design was not fully accomplished, and,  

after so extraordinary a lapse of time, you are reserved as a signal example of the  

justice of that mysterious Providence, which, sooner or later, overtakes guilt like  

yours. At the very time when you were apprehended, there is the greatest reason to  

suppose, that if your surviving victim had met you alone, as you wished him to do,  

you would have administered to him a more deadly dose, which would have  

completed the diabolical project you had long before formed, but which at that time  

only partially succeeded; for upon your person, at that moment, was found a phial  

containing a most deadly poison. For crimes like yours, in this world, the gates of  

mercy are closed. You afforded your victim no time for preparation, but the law,  

while it dooms you to death, has, in its mercy, afforded you time for repentance, and  

the assistance of pious and devout men, whose admonitions, and prayers, and counsels  

may assist to prepare you for another world, where even your crimes, if sincerely  

repented of, may find mercy. 

'The sentence of the law is, and the court doth award it, That you be taken to  

the place from whence you came, and from thence, on Monday next, to the place of  

execution, there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and that your body be  

given to the surgeons to be dissected and anatomized. And may Almighty God have  

mercy upon your soul.' 

The prisoner having intimated that she was pregnant, the clerk of the arraigns  

said, 'Mary Bateman, what have you to say, why immediate execution should not be  

awarded against you?' On which the prisoner pleaded that she was twenty-two weeks  

gone with child. On this plea the judge ordered the sheriff to empanel a jury of  

matrons: this order created a general consternation among the ladies, who hastened to  

quit the court, to prevent the execution of so painful an office being imposed upon  

them. His lordship, in consequence, ordered the doors to be closed, and in about half- 

an-hour, twelve married women being empanelled, they were sworn in court, and  

charged to inquire 'whether the prisoner was with quick child?' The jury of matrons  

then retired with the prisoner, and on their return into court delivered their verdict,  

which was that Mary Bateman is not with quick child. The execution of course was  

not respited, and she was remanded back to prison. 

During the brief interval between her receiving sentence of death and her  

execution, the ordinary, the Rev George Brown, took great pains to prevail upon her  

ingenuously to acknowledge and confess her crimes. Though the prisoner behaved  

with decorum during the few hours that remained of her existence, and readily joined  

in the customary offices of devotion, no traits of that deep compunction of mind  

which, for crimes like hers, must be felt where repentance is sincere, could be  

observed; but she maintained her caution and mystery to the last. On the day  

preceding her execution, she wrote a letter to her husband, in which she enclosed her  

wedding-ring, with a request that it might be given to her daughter. She admitted that  

she had been guilty of many frauds, but still denied that she had had any intention to  

produce the death of Mr or Mrs Perigo. 

Upon the Monday morning at five o'clock she was called from her cell, to  

undergo the last sentence of the law. She received the communion with some other  

prisoners, who were about to be executed on the same day, but all attempts to induce  

her to acknowledge the justice of her sentence, or the crime of which she had been  

found guilty, proved vain. She maintained the greatest firmness in her demeanour to  

the last, which was in no wise interrupted even upon her taking leave of her infant  

child, which lay sleeping in her cell. 

Upon the appearance of the convict upon the platform, the deepest silence  

prevailed amongst the immense assemblage of persons which had been collected to  

witness the execution. As final duty, the Rev Mr Brown, immediately before the drop  

fell again exhorted the unhappy woman to confession, but her only reply was a  

repetition of the declaration of her innocence, and the next moment terminated her  

existence. 

Her body having remained suspended during the usual time, was cut down,  

and sent to the General Infirmary at Leeds to be anatomized. Immense crowds of  

persons assembled to meet the hearse in which it was carried, and so great was the  

desire of the people to see her remains, that 30L. were collected for the of the  

infirmary, by the payment of 3d. for each person admitted to the apartment in which  

they were exposed. 

Mary Bateman was neat in her person and dress, and though there was nothing  

ingenuous in her countenance, it had an air of placidity and composure, not ill adapted  

to make a favourable impression on those who visited her. Her manner of address was  

soft and insinuating, with the affectation of sanctity. In her domestic arrangements she  

was regular, and was mistress of such qualifications in housewifery as, with an honest  

heart, would have enabled her to fill her station with respectability and usefulness.

HENRY HUNT  

A Driver of the Norwich Mail. Convicted of stealing a Gold Watch sent by  

his Coach, 8th of April, 1809

AT the Old Bailey, on Monday, 8th of April, Henry Hunt was put to the bar  

charged with having stolen a gold watch, with a metal outside case, and two gold  

seals, valued at sixteen guineas, the property of a Mr James Bennett. There were other  

counts in the indictment charging this property to belong to Messrs Gooch & Co.,  

watchmakers, and Messrs Boulton & Co., coach-owners. 

It appeared from the evidence of Mr Gooch that he got the watch in question  

from Mr Bennett, who resided at Norwich, and that on the 5th of March he booked it  

at the coach office of Messrs Boulton & Co. for that city, and paid booking. Mr  

Bennett proved that it never came to hand. 

It appeared that the prisoner was the driver of the Norwich mail, by which  

coach the parcel containing this property was sent, and that on the 11th of March he  

went to a public-house, known by the sign of the Bunch of Grapes, in Bow Street, and  

there stated that he wanted to have a watch, which he had lately bought, either altered  

or exchanged for a silver watch, and wished the landlord to find out the value of it.  

The landlord took the watch for that purpose, and the first person to whom he made  

mention of the fact, after showing it to a watchmaker, was an officer belonging to the  

public office, Bow Street, of the name of Salmon, who ultimately apprehended the  

prisoner, when he subsequently came to town, the moment he alighted at the Golden  

Cross, Charing Cross. The prisoner at first said he had bought it from a person known  

at Lad Lane by the nickname of "Long Jack," and the officer accompanied him  

thither; but it turned out to be a gross falsehood. 

A witness of the name of Woodbridge was called to prove that he saw the  

prisoner buy the watch from a tall man in Lombard Street, whilst the coach was  

waiting for the mail delivery. But not only was the account which he gave of himself  

problematical, but his story as to the fact was so gross and contradictory that he was  

subsequently committed to take his trial for wilful and corrupt perjury, and he was  

immediately conveyed into Newgate by the officers of the court. 

The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. The indictment,  

however, was, through the lenity of the prosecutors, only maintained to the extent of  

larceny, by which means the prisoner was saved from a capital conviction; but the  

Court had the power of transporting him for seven years. He was sentenced to  

transportation for seven years.

WILLIAM PROUDLOVE AND GEORGE GLOVER  

Executed at Chester, 28th of May, 1809, for Salt-Stealing, after a First  

Attempt to hang them had failed

IN the county of Cheshire were several salt-works; and these men, it appeared,  

were connected with a gang of villains, who made a practice of committing  

depredations on those valuable manufactories, and conveying the salt to Liverpool  

and Manchester, where they found a ready sale for it. 

The works at Odd Rode had been frequently plundered by these men; and  

when they were detected by an excise officer they fired a pistol at him, in order to  

facilitate their escape. They, however, missed their aim, were taken, tried, and  

sentenced to death. They confessed the robbery, but solemnly denied the act of  

shooting at the exciseman, which they laid to the charge of one Robert Beech, one of  

the gang not then apprehended. 

On the morning of their execution they received the Sacrament with much  

apparent devotion, in which they were joined by the wife of Proudlove, the mother of  

Glover, and four more convicts under sentence of death. They were then consigned to  

the custody of the sheriff, and walked with firm steps to the cart in waiting to receive  

them. After they had passed through the principal streets of the city of Chester they  

were carried to the place of execution, which was covered with black cloth. 

We wish we could here end our painful report of the sad scene which followed  

the dropping of the platform; but alas, horrid to relate, both ropes snapped a few  

inches from their necks, and the poor sufferers fell upon the terrace. 

The impression and shock upon the feelings of a multitude of spectators at this  

moment cannot be described. Human sensibility was harrowed to the very soul; and  

the moans, cries and tears of the people loudly spoke the poignancy of their hearts.  

Stranger yet to tell, the miserable men appeared to feel little either in body or mind  

from the shock they had received: they lamented it had happened, and spoke of it as a  

disappointment in going instantly to heaven. 

They were conducted back to the jail, to which they walked with equal  

coolness, and only requested that the chaplain might again come to them. This was  

complied with-and, stronger ropes being procured, about three o'clock in the  

afternoon, having passed the intermediate time in prayer, they were reconducted to the  

fatal drop and, perfectly resigned to their fate, were launched into eternity. 

[Note: A circumstance of this affecting nature happened some years ago, on  

the execution of William Snow alias Skitch, for burglary, and James Wayborn, for a  

highway robbery at Exeter. These wretched men had been turned off a few seconds,  

when the rope whereby Skitch was suspended slipped from the gallows and he fell to  

the ground. He soon rose and heard the sorrowful exclamations of the spectators, to  

whom he calmly addressed these words: 'Good people, do not be hurried; I am not  

hurried: I can wait a little.' The executioner wishing to lengthen the rope, Skitch  

calmly waited until his companion was dead, when the rope was taken from the dead  

man's arms, in order to complete the execution of Skitch, who was a second time  

launched from the scaffold, amidst the tears of thousands."  

-- Historical Magazine, 1789. 

From the same authority we also find that, on the execution of W. Combes, W.  

Harvey and T. Hunt, owing to the carelessness or ignorance of the hangman, two of  

the unhappy sufferers fell to the ground after being tied up; and, to augment their  

horrors, witnessed the last agonies of their unfortunate companion. ]

CAPTAIN JOHN SUTHERLAND  

Commander of the British Armed Transport, The Friends. Executed at  

Execution Dock, on the Banks of the Thames, 29th of June, 1809, for the  

Murder of his Cabin-Boy.

Captain Sutherland killing his Cabin-boy

AT the Admiralty Sessions, on Friday, the 22nd of June, 1809, before Sir  

William Scott, President, and Sir Nash Grose, one of the judges of the Court of King's  

Bench, John Sutherland stood capitally indicted for the wilful murder of William  

Richardson, a boy thirteen years old, on the previous 5th of November, on board a  

British transport ship, named The Friends, of which the prisoner was captain, in the  

River Tagus, and within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty. 

Sir Christopher Robinson stated the case on the part of the Crown. 

The first witness called was John Thompson, a negro mariner, who, being  

sworn and examined by the Attorney-General, stated that he was a seaman on board  

The Friends, in the Tagus, at anchor about a mile from Lisbon, on the 5th of  

November; that he had been, about a month previously, engaged by the prisoner, in  

Lisbon; that on the day above stated the captain and mate were on shore, as were also  

the other two seamen belonging to the ship's crew, and no person left on board but  

himself and the deceased, a boy of thirteen, who usually attended on the prisoner.  

About eight o'clock in the evening the prisoner came on board, and immediately went  

down to his cabin, and called the deceased down to him. A few minutes afterwards the  

deceased came upon deck and told the witness to go down also, which he did. The  

Captain asked him how it could be managed to keep watch on deck for the night, the  

mate and the other two seamen being on shore. The witness answered he could keep  

watch until twelve o'clock. The prisoner agreed to this, and desired the witness to be  

sure to call him at twelve, and in the meantime not to suffer any boat to come  

alongside without letting him know. He then desired the witness to go on deck and  

send down the boy, which he did. 

About five minutes afterwards witness heard the boy cry out loudly to him; he  

called him by his name, Jack Thompson. The witness did not go down immediately,  

for he supposed the Captain was only beating the boy, as usual. The boy continued to  

call out loudly several times; and at last the witness went down, and saw the Captain  

standing over the boy, with a naked dirk or dagger in his hand, which he waved to and  

fro. The boy was lying on the cabin floor, and he immediately said to the witness:  

"Jack Thompson, look here: here Captain Sutherland has stabbed me"; and  

immediately lifted up his shirt and showed him a bleeding wound upon the left side of  

his belly, near his groin, and his entrails hanging out. The prisoner said nothing at the  

moment; he heard what the boy said. On the witness turning about to leave the cabin  

the prisoner said to him: "Jack, I know I have done wrong." The witness, who was not  

above three minutes in the cabin, answered: "I know very well you have"; and  

immediately returned to the deck and hailed the next ship to him, which was the  

Elizabeth transport, for assistance. The Elizabeth not being able to send a surgeon, the  

prisoner insisted on going ashore with witness and finding one. There a British and a  

Portuguese soldier came up to them, to whom the witness told what had happened.  

The Captain then came back with the witness to the ship. When they came on board  

they found that two surgeons had been there, dressed the wounds of the deceased, and  

put him into bed. He was removed the next morning on board the Audacious, as were  

also the prisoner and the witness. At the time Captain Sutherland came on board, after  

going to seek the surgeon, the mate, who had meanwhile returned, asked him what he  

had to do with such a weapon-referring to the dirk. The prisoner answered that he  

would never hurt anybody else with it, and then threw the dirk overboard. After the  

witness was on board the Audacious he heard the prisoner say to the deceased he was  

very sorry for what he had done; but he did not hear the deceased make any answer.  

He heard him repeat his sorrow at another time. The witness was on board the  

Audacious when the boy died, nine days afterwards. 

Other witnesses were called, and the jury, after a short consultation, returned  

their verdict of guilty. Sir William Scott then passed upon him the awful sentence of  

the law, which was, that he be hanged at Execution Dock, and his body afterwards  

delivered to the surgeons for dissection. The unhappy man, who had a wife and five  

children, retired from the bar greatly agitated, and was so overcome as to require the  

support of the attendants. He was about forty years old. 

At the rising of the Court Sir William Scott signified to the sheriffs that the  

execution must necessarily be deferred until the following Thursday, on account of  

the state of the tide. On that day, accordingly, this unfortunate man was launched into  

eternity.

HENRY WHITE AND JAMES SMITH  

Well-equipped and armed Burglars, who were sentenced to Death at the Old  

Bailey, 3rd of July, 1809

HENRY WHITE and James Smith were tried at the Old Bailey, on the 3rd of  

July, 1809, on an indictment for burglariously breaking into and entering the  

dwelling-house of Francis Sitwell, Esq., of Durweston Street, St Marylebone, with  

intent to steal. 

A watchman deposed that, being alarmed about the hour of two in the morning  

with an unusual noise which came from Mr Sitwell's house, he went towards it, when  

a man, who afterwards turned out to be the prisoner White, suddenly ran off, and he  

followed him. White was soon overtaken, and Smith was also secured. In the direction  

in which they ran there were found some pick-lock keys, in bundles, a dark lantern, an  

iron crow and a loaded pistol. 

On examining Mr Sitwell's house it was discovered that a hole had been bored  

exactly under the lock, by a centre-bit, large enough to admit a man's arm, the door  

unlocked, the lower bolt forced back, and the door opened, having been forced bv  

means of the crow, as they could not reach the upper bolt from the hole made with the  

centre-bit. They were found guilty, and received sentence of death.

WILLIAM HEWITT  

Fined Five Hundred Pounds, and imprisoned, at the Old Bailey Sessions, in  

October, 1809, for enticing an English Artificer to leave his Country and  

emigrate to the United States of North America

WILLIAM HEWITT was indicted at the Old Bailey sessions, in October,  

1809, for enticing an artificer, of the name of John Hutchinson, to leave the country  

and emigrate to the United States of America. 

Mr Hughes, a dyer, in Bunhill Row, stated that Hutchinson was in his service,  

under contract, as a working mechanic, skilled in the dyeing of cotton, and that on the  

30th of August the prisoner, by promises of future reward, and the advance  

immediately of a sum of money, amounting to about twenty-two pounds, engaged him  

to leave his country and accompany him to America, there to be employed in the  

cotton manufactory. His evidence was corroborated by several other witnesses, and  

the prisoner called some in his defence, but they rather confirmed than disproved the  

case on the part of the prosecution. 

He was convicted, and the Court sentenced him, under the Act of Parliament,  

to pay a fine of five hundred pounds, and to suffer three months' imprisonment. 

Hutchinson, the servant, was likewise convicted under the same Act, for  

engaging to leave the country, and was ordered to find bail to remain in it.

EDWARD EDWARDS  

A Young but Artful Thief, transported for stealing privately from a Shop in  

London, October, 1809

THIS offender was not eighteen, and small for his age. He was convicted at  

the Old Bailey, October sessions, 1809, of privately stealing, in the shop of Mr  

Wilson, a jeweller, in Houndsditch, a gold brooch set with pearls, a gold ring, set in  

like manner, and some other articles of jewellery. 

Mr Wilson stated that the prisoner came to his shop on Friday evening and  

desired to see some fancy articles. He selected a number, to the value of fourteen  

pounds, but contrived to steal several articles, which were immediately missed; and  

the prosecutor, on searching the prisoner, found the articles, but not one penny of  

money about him. He immediately sent for a constable and gave him in charge; and it  

was alleged by some persons that the constable, by direction of the prosecutor, had  

carried the prisoner on board the tender. The prosecutor expressed a wish not to  

prosecute the unfortunate youth, in mere tenderness to the feelings of his father, who  

was an honest, industrious man; he rather wished him to be sent to serve his country,  

but denied having given any directions to send him to the tender. 

The constable denied that he had taken him there. Alderman Newnham  

deprecated the idea of sending such a person to disgrace his Majesty's service, as the  

only service for which such persons were adapted was Botany Bay. He was tried at  

the last Old Bailey sessions for a similar offence, and as he now seemed quite  

incorrigible, no course remained but to send him out of the country. 

[Note: It had long been a practice to send notorious felons and persons guilty  

of picking pockets from police offices to serve in the navy. This was not only  

unlawful, but our brave and honest seamen were disgraced by being compelled to  

associate with such characters. Commanders of ships were also under the necessity of  

imposing severe discipline to prevent the depredations of those unprincipled  

miscreants whenever they formed a part of their crew, and the good men in general  

suffered privations for the conduct of the bad. Thus the service, honourable in itself,  

was brought into contempt in the opinion of seamen belonging to the merchants. Five  

delinquents guilty of felony, but suffered to escape by the humanity of their  

prosecutors on condition of serving the King, were once sent, by order of the sitting  

alderman, on board the tender. After the constables had conveyed them on board the  

officer immediately ordered them to be taken back, observing: "We don't want thieves  

here."]

JAMES MARLBOROUGH, AND SARAH, HIS WIFE  

Imprisoned for Gross Cruelty to their Child, 8th of December, 1809

AT the sessions held at Hicks's Hall, for the county of Middlesex, on Friday,  

the 8th of December, 1809, James Marlborough and Sarah, his wife, were charged  

with most inhuman and cruel treatment towards Mary Marlborough, the infant child  

of James Marlborough by a former wife. 

The defendant, James Marlborough, had two children by his first wife; Sarah  

was his second wife. From the moment of her marriage she practised every species of  

barbarity towards both of them, especially towards the little girl, whose daily and  

nightly shrieks and piteous cries not only annoyed but alarmed all the neighbours  

within hearing. On the 9th of October, 1809, the child was heard to weep most  

piteously in the front cellar, a place known by the neighbours to be of the most filthy  

and hideous description, and where the defendants kept a pig. About twelve o'clock at  

night some forced their way into the house, and insisted upon seeing both the  

children. They searched the cellar, but could not find anything there but gloomy  

darkness, dampness and a pig. They then proceeded upstairs, and in the back parlour  

found the child lying under the bed, with both her eyes beaten black, bruised from  

head to foot, and almost starved-a shocking spectacle, showing a degree of cruelty  

and inhumanity never before witnessed. On this the children were taken to the parish  

officers, and had been in their hands ever since. The defendants were taken into  

custody, and the woman then acknowledged that she had ill-used the child. 

The little boy told a tale of woe that would have harrowed the hardest heart.  

He fully established all the statements of the counsel for the prosecution. He said that  

his stepmother was in the frequent habit of plunging his little sister into a tub of cold  

water; that she used to beat her with sticks, with rods and with a toasting-fork, and  

that the two black eyes which she had when found under the bed were given her on  

that day by her stepmother with a spoon. The jury, without a moment's hesitation,  

found both the prisoners guilty. 

It turned out in the course of the inquiry that James Marlborough had beat his  

wife for her ill-treatment of his children. 

The Court sentenced the woman to one year's imprisonment in the house of  

correction, Coldbath Fields, and the man to fourteen days in Newgate-a mild  

punishment for such barbarity.

GEORGE WEBB  

Son of a Clergyman, and a Notorious Burglar. Executed on Shooter's Hill,  

near London, 1809

GEORGE WEBB was born near Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire, and, though  

the son of a clergyman, became a most notorious depredator. He went to London, and  

there got acquainted with Richard Russel, John Leonard White and Edward Egerton,  

men of infamous character. He then went to Woolwich and worked as a lumper, and  

there married a young woman of the name of Cocks, and commenced as smuggler.  

About Deptford he was known by the name of Smith. He was committed for an  

assault, and tried at the Quarter Sessions at Maidstone, where he received sentence of  

imprisonment, to pay a fine of five pounds, and to find bondsmen for his good  

behaviour. He lay there six months after his sentence had expired for want of sureties,  

and then volunteered his services to the justices to serve in the West Kent Militia. His  

services were accepted, and he was sworn in at Tonbridge. 

He joined the regiment, remained with it five or six months, and then deserted.  

He was taken up and brought back to Maidstone as a deserter, and was discharged by  

order of the Secretary of War, taken to the regiment, and punished. 

Soon after this he again deserted, and took an apartment on Blackheath, in the  

neighbourhood of which, many depredations having been committed, he was  

apprehended and taken to Bow Street, with Richard Russel and Sarah Russel, on  

suspicion of feloniously and burglariously breaking into and entering the dwelling- 

house of Thomas Ebenezer Taylor, situated at New Cross, and stealing a pair of  

pistols, an opera-glass and divers other articles. 

They also stood charged with breaking into and entering the dwelling-house of  

William Shadbolt, in the parish of Deptford, and stealing divers articles of plate,  

several silver coins, seven shirts, etc. Also with breaking into and entering the  

dwelling-house of Joseph Warner, in the parish of Eltham, and stealing six window- 

curtains and divers other articles. When taken into custody it was discovered Webb  

had been at Birmingham. He had sent his mother a letter, a copy of which is as  

follows:-- 

MY DEAR MOTHER,--  

Ingratitude, mingled with shame, almost dares me to either write or see you  

again: however, I have this assurance and full determination of seeing you, please  

God, and with your approbation, on Wednesday next, at the Hen and Chickens, New  

Street, Birmingham, with my sister or sisters. It is my intention, please the Almighty  

nothing happens, to be there on the before-mentioned day, and I hope you will give  

me the meeting there, if possible you can make it convenient. Do not let the expense  

be a hindrance, as that's of no consequence. I will defray the whole. So you will, I  

hope, excuse this short epistle, and forward an answer by return of post, to oblige your  

ungrateful son,  

GEORGE WEBB.  

BLACKHEATH.  

P.S.-- Direct for Mr Webb, near the Hare and Billet, Blackheath, Kent. 

The magistrates at Bow Street now thought it advisable to dispatch William  

Adkins, an officer, to Bordesley, near Birmingham, the residence of his mother, who,  

on his arrival there, searched her house for silver tablespoons and other goods stolen  

from the house of General Twiss, of Southend, near Eltham, in Kent. Mr Payn and Mr  

Eagle, constables, assisted him in the search. When he entered Mrs Webb's house he  

found therein Mrs Webb and her two daughters, Mrs Knot, a lodger, and the servant- 

girl. He asked Mrs Webb if she had a son who lived in Blackheath. She said she  

believed she had. He then asked her if he had not been down to see her lately. She  

said he had. He then asked her if he had not brought a box or trunk with plated goods  

in it. She replied he had brought a box, but there was nothing but clothes in it; and  

what he had brought he had taken away with him. He then told Mrs Webb he was an  

officer from Bow Street; that he and Mr Payn and Mr Eagle had a warrant to search  

the house; that her son was in custody on a very serious charge, and if he had left  

anything with her, or if there was anything in her house which he had brought down  

with him, he begged her to mention them, as otherwise, if anything were found, it  

might be of serious consequence to her; for, as to him (her son), no evidence was  

wanting to convict him. Mrs Webb said there was nothing left there at all. He again  

begged of her, if there was anything, to inform him of it. She hesitated a while, and  

then said there was a pair of pistols, which were in a box in the back kitchen. The  

witness took possession of them, and also a pair of patent silver clasps or latchets, and  

wrote his initials on them. He then asked her if there was anything more, and she  

positively said there was not. Miss Ann Webb came up to him in the passage, and he  

asked her if there was anything more, and she said there was; that she had a purse and  

a smelling-bottle in her pocket; and she immediately gave him a silver-net purse, a  

smelling-bottle and an opera-glass. He then asked her if there was not something else;  

and she said yes there was: her sister had a purse also and a pocket-book. He then  

went to Mrs M'Gaa, and she acknowledged to have received from her brother a purse  

and a pocket-book, and went upstairs and fetched a silver-net purse, a pocket-book, a  

pencil and pencil-case, and gave them to the officer. He then asked Miss Ann Webb if  

there were not some plated goods. She replied: " Why, has not my mother told you?"  

He said: "Yes, but not where they are." Mrs M'Gaa then took him to a shed in the  

garden and showed him where they were; and out of a rabbit-pen in that shed he took  

four plated stands and two silver saltspoons, which were covered with hay in the pen.  

He then asked her if there was anything else. She said: "Has my mother mentioned a  

table-cloth?" Adkins said: "No." Mrs M'Gaa then took him upstairs and showed him a  

drawer, out of which he took a large damask table-cloth. He then said he must search  

them; and on that Mrs Webb pulled out of her pocket a shagreen mathematical  

instrument case and instruments, which she said she had forgotten, and a pocket-book  

of yellow leather, mounted with silver, which she gave to him. Mrs M'Gaa afterwards  

gave him another pair of silver salt-spoons. All these goods Mrs Webb said her son  

had given to them. He also took from Miss Ann Webb seven pieces of old silver coin  

and one piece of gold coin; also a silver cross set with garnets, and an enamelled  

trinket mounted with brass. He likewise found in the cupboard in the parlour a silver  

pepper-box. 

The next morning he found in a drawer, in the front chamber, a red morocco  

writing-case, which Mrs Webb and her daughters said they had no knowledge of. The  

widow, on examination, afterwards confessed that her son, George Webb, about  

twenty-eight years old, came to see her that day fortnight, in order to sign a  

conveyance of his interest in an estate to her, which she had contracted to sell to Sir  

Harry Featherstone Haugh; that he told her he resided at Blackheath, had married a  

wife with a fortune of nine hundred and fifty pounds, was in the wholesale tea trade,  

and doing very well; that he should have it in his power to assist her if she wanted it,  

and to allow her fifty pounds a year; that he brought his clothes in a box; and when he  

first came into the house he told her he had brought her a small present, and went  

upstairs with his box, and brought down two pairs of plated bottle-stands and two  

pairs of silver saltspoons, and a silver-net purse and a table-cloth, which he gave to  

her; that soon after he gave to his sister, Mrs M'Gaa, a silver-net purse and a silver  

pencil-case and penknife; and to his sister Ann he gave a smelling-bottle, a yellow  

leather purse mounted with silver, and an opera-glass. That as soon as his brother  

Robert came home from work he gave him, in her presence, a pair of brass pistols,  

which he said he had designed for his brother Charles; that he also gave Robert a pair  

of patent silver latchets, and a mathematical instrument case, as he thought Robert  

was in a way of trade in which they might be of service to him; that he said he had  

given five guineas for the pistols and two pounds, ten shillings for the mathematical  

instrument case; that she (the mother) was proud of these articles as a present from her  

son, and showed them to Mr Allen and Mr Dickenson, and many other neighbours;  

that in return she gave her son George, before he left Birmingham, a silver watch of  

his father's, a gold seal and a silver cup. She, however, confessed that, a little before  

the officers came and searched her house, she had received a letter by the London  

post, without a signature, and ill spelt, dated 1st of July, 1809, desiring her to put  

everything out of the house. Fearing from this that her son had done something  

wrong, she was distressed to the utmost, and put the two pairs of bottle-stands and  

pair of salt-spoons in the rabbit-pen; and that from the same fears, and under the same  

alarm, she was induced to give the false account she did to Mr Adkins respecting the  

things her son George had brought to her house. 

The stolen property being thus ascertained, the suspected housebreakers-viz.  

Webb, Russel, White, Egerton and Sarah Russel, Russel's wife, aged thirty-five-were  

removed from London to Maidstone, and there tried for the same. Webb and Russel  

were found guilty, and White, Egerton and Russel's wife were acquitted. 

When sentence of death was pronounced, Webb did not appear the least  

affected.

RICHARD TURNER  

A Young but Artful Swindler, transported to Botany Bay for Fourteen years  

for cheating a Young Lady 

NUMEROUS as have been our reports of the tricks and shifts of swindlers,  

this youth, had he not been checked in early career, might have proved as dangerous  

to society as the greatest adept in this species of robbery. 

At Middlesex Sessions Richard Turner, a very young man, was tried for  

fraudulently obtaining from Miss Stratford, the daughter of a respectable gentleman in  

Hatton Garden, the sum of two pounds, in the following artful manner. His father  

being a postman at Clapham, he got access to letters sent by post. He opened one  

letter sent by a young lady named Burford, a teacher in a school at Clapham, directed  

to Mr Stratford in the common course of correspondence; he suppressed the same and  

wrote out a copy, interpolated with paragraphs of his own invention, particularly one  

in which Miss B. was made to say that the bearer was the son of the gardener, and  

begged Miss Stratford to send by him two pounds, to pay for articles which she had  

purchased in Bond Street. The prisoner carried the letter, and received from Miss  

Stratford the money and some articles of dress, which he, instead of bringing to Miss  

Burford at Clapham, gave to a common prostitute, whom he kept company with in  

Lambeth. It also appeared that a letter written by Miss Burford to a Miss Cooper in  

Shrewsbury had been opened in the same manner by the prisoner, and a surreptitious  

one sent in its stead, desiring an answer to be returned to Miss White, St George's  

Fields. This circumstance came to Miss Burford's knowledge; and an explanation  

having taken place between her and Miss Stratford, a Bow Street officer was sent to  

Miss White's lodgings, in Felix Street, Lambeth, who said he had a letter from Miss  

Burford. The prisoner appeared to receive it, was immediately taken, and confessed  

the whole fraud. He was found guilty, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation.

JOHN LUMLEY  

Imprisoned, and whipped through the Streets of the Borough of Southwark,  

for stealing Pewter Pint-Pots from Public-Houses, January, 1810

THERE was no petty thieving which had at this time so much increased as  

stealing the pewter pots wherein London publicans served their customers with porter.  

Even families had been detected in disgracefully withholding and denying their  

having publicans' pots in their possession when proof had been given that they had not  

returned them to the owner. To check the severe and increasing losses arising from  

pot-stealing, which seem nearly incredible, the publicans formed a respectable  

association in London, as Licensed Victuallers, and brought a Bill before Parliament  

for the better protection of their property. But the Commons-conceiving, perhaps, the  

complaint not to be of sufficient magnitude for the interference of the legislative  

body-threw out the Bill; so that their remedy remained only the law of indictments for  

petty larceny, and this being troublesome and expensive these meanest of thieves were  

but seldom prosecuted to conviction. 

The publicans attributed the opposition made to their Bill to the pewterers- 

what envy, even in these grades of society!-and, by way of revenge, the former  

entered into a resolution to manufacture their own pots. 

A meeting of the Licensed Victuallers was held at the Crown and Anchor, in  

the Strand, pursuant to advertisement, to take into consideration the measures for  

preventing the depredations committed on their property by the purloining of pewter  

pots, on the 16th of July, 1812,; Mr James Palmer in the chair. 

The chairman commented at some length on the opposition given by certain  

pewterers to their petition, and spoke in terms of severe reprehension on the violent  

manner in which he conceived some of them had conducted themselves while the  

business was in its progress through the House of Commons. He had not the least  

doubt but the Bill would be carried in the ensuing sessions. And here he could not  

help speaking in terms of grateful respect of Sir Thomas Turton, Mr Whitbread, Mr  

Rose, Sir James Graham, Mr H. Thornton, Mr Sheridan, Mr W. Smith, Mr Wharton  

and the other Members who advocated their cause and voted for their Bill. 

He next proposed a remedy for the evil, and to protect their property, which  

was highly approved. It was for the establishment of a company among themselves  

for the manufacture of their own pots, of pure metal, by which the stolen pots could  

not be remanufactured and resold to themselves again-a proposition to which assent  

was carried unanimously. Several other resolutions were then moved and agreed to,  

after which the meeting adjourned. 

John Lumley was indicted at the Westminster Sessions, 1810, for stealing a  

pewter pint-pot, the property of the landlord of the Cart and Horse public-house,  

Tooley Street; there was also another charge against him for a similar offence- 

namely, having in his possession a pot belonging to the landlord of the Black Lion;  

and a third, for stealing two pewter pots, the property of the landlord of the Green  

Dragon, Bermondsey Street. 

It appeared in evidence that as the prisoner passed along Ratcliff Highway, on  

Wednesday evening, he was observed to drop a pot from under his coat, which a  

person near him instantly picked up. Perceiving it to belong to a public-house, and a  

publican in the neighbourhood having recently lost several pots, the man followed the  

prisoner, secured him, and took him to the house in question. A constable was sent  

for, and they proceeded to search him, when no less than six pint-pots were found  

concealed upon his person, none of which, however, belonged to the landlord of the  

house where he then was, but to several public-houses in the Borough, amongst which  

were the Black Lion and the Cart and Horse public-houses, in Tooley Street, and the  

Green Dragon, in Bermondsey Street. Upon discovering from what neighbourhood  

the pots came, the constable took the prisoner to Union Hall, and the landlords of the  

above and other public-houses attended, and swore to the pots being their property. 

The jury found him guilty. 

The chairman observed that the offence of which the prisoner had been  

convicted had become one of such great magnitude as to call for the severest  

punishment. It would scarcely be credited, but it had been ascertained that the  

depredations of this sort committed on the property of publicans, in and around the  

metropolis, amounted to the enormous sum of one hundred thousand pounds per  

annum. The prisoner had been convicted on the clearest evidence, and the Court felt  

itself bound to inflict a punishment which might operate to put a stop, if possible, to  

this evil. The sentence of the Court then was that he should be confined to hard labour  

for three months in the house of correction, and once during that time to be publicly  

whipped from the end of Horsemonger Lane to the end of Lant Street, in the Borough;  

which was severely inflicted.

THOMAS PUGH AND ELIZABETH PUGH  

Convicted at the London Sessions, 20th of January, 1810, and sentenced to  

Imprisonment for a Conspiracy, in what is called " Child-Dropping "

THIS unfeeling, unnatural couple, father and daughter, were indicted at the  

London Sessions, in January, 1810, for conspiring, with other persons unknown, to  

defraud the overseers of the poor of the parish of St Andrew, Holborn, by exposing  

there a child of tender years, which would, of necessity, have become a burden on the  

funds of that parish. 

W. Sculthorpe, a letter-carrier, proved that he had found a child, not above two  

years old, at the door of the house of Mr Moseley, in Castle Street, Holborn, after nine  

o'clock on the night of the 31st of August, 1809, half-way between the step of the  

door and the kerbstone. He took it up and kept it on his knee till Mr Moseley came  

out, who humanely took the child in. 

Mr Moseley stated that after some ineffectual endeavours to get the child into  

the Foundling Hospital he sent it to the workhouse. Ann Taylor said she nursed the  

child from the 9th of October, 1807, till the 27th of August, 1809, when Miss Pugh  

took it away; but afterwards, on the remonstrance of a Mrs Dally, who suspected  

some injury was intended to the infant, another nurse of the name of Inglis was given  

the charge of it, from whom, however, it was taken between seven and eight on the  

Thursday following. 

A coachman proved he carried the two prisoners and the child (on the night  

the latter was exposed) to Castle Street, Holborn. Elizabeth Feary swore that Miss  

Pugh had told her that in the event of the death of the child, who had been entrusted to  

her care, she should have three hundred pounds. The father of the child was an officer,  

who had settled that sum on the child, and on its death the money was to come to Miss  

Pugh. This story she often repeated to the witness, intimating her wish for the death of  

the child. This alarmed the witness; and she, in consequence, warned the nurse to  

whom the child was entrusted. 

J. Timbray proved T. Pugh's confession that a letter, arranging the meeting  

with E. Pugh at St Andrew's Church, Holborn, on the 31st of August, was in his  

handwriting. A long defence was read by T. Pugh, who was eighty-four years of age,  

and father to E. Pugh, on whom he threw the whole blame. 

Mr Gurney, counsel for Elizabeth Pugh, contended that the whole  

circumstances of the case proved that his client had no intention to put the child out of  

the way. She had paid ten pounds to the other defendant, T. Pugh, who had  

undertaken to get it provided for where there would be no probability of its mother  

being inquired after, and in this he had deceived her. 

The recorder made a suitable charge to the jury, who immediately found both  

the prisoners guilty. 

The recorder then pronounced the sentence of the Court to be, that each of the  

defendants be imprisoned in Giltspur Street Compter for six calendar months.

HENRY CLARKE  

Convicted at the Old Bailey, 20th of February, 1810, for robbing a Mail- 

Coach, and sentenced to Death

HENRY CLARKE was charged with robbing the Bath mail-coach of bank- 

notes, of the Wootton-Basset bank, to the amount of one thousand, eight hundred and  

twenty-five pounds, the property of Messrs Large, bankers at Wootton-Basset.  

It appeared from the statement of the counsel for the prosecution, Mr Gurney,  

that a parcel containing the said notes was sent from the banking-house of Messrs  

Cobb & Co., in Lombard Street, to the coach office of the Swan with two Necks, Lad  

Lane, on the 2nd of January, 1810, directed to Mr Large, at Bath, for the purpose of  

being sent by him to their house at Wootton-Basset, but that the parcel never came to  

hand. 

The people at the coach office proved the booking of it there; but whether it  

had been stolen at their office, or out of the coach in the yard, or elsewhere, they  

could not say. It was proved, however, to have been seen on the counter in the office;  

and one of the witnesses went so far as to say that he was certain it had been put into  

the coach. 

Three of the notes of ten pounds each were some time after traced to the  

prisoner, who was apprehended in consequence. His defence was that he found them,  

but of this he gave no proof; and, to rebut that, it was proved that in putting off one of  

the bills he had put a fictitious name on it instead of his own. 

These facts were all proved, and the jury, without much hesitation, found him  

guilty, and sentence of death was passed.

WILLIAM COLMAN  

A Convict on board the Hulks, at Woolwich. Executed on Pennington Heath,  

26th of March, 1810, for the Murder of a Fellow-Prisoner

AT the Lent Assizes for the county of Kent, William Colman was indicted for  

the wilful murder of Thomas Jones, on the 29th of August, 1809, in the parish of  

Woolwich, by giving him several stabs in the neck and breast with a knife. 

The prisoner was a young man, aged only twenty, and both himself and the  

deceased were convicts on board the hulks at Woolwich. The case was proved by two  

other convicts, and the facts they stated were as follows.  

A brick had, a night or two before, been thrown at one of the officers of the  

convicts, and the prisoner suspected that the deceased had given information that he  

was the man who had committed the offence. Being incensed at the deceased, he  

repeatedly swore he would be revenged. They were, however, apparently reconciled,  

shook hands, and drank together; the deceased also helped the prisoner into bed, as he  

was incommoded by being loaded with very heavy irons. It appeared, however, that  

the prisoner still cherished his purpose of revenge, for, after remaining in bed some  

time, when he supposed all about him were asleep, he softly rose and went to the  

place where he knew a knife was kept, which he got. He then stole to the bed of the  

deceased and stabbed him in the throat and breast in the most determined manner. The  

wounds he gave were instantly mortal. He was, however, observed to have got out of  

bed, and go to the place where the knife was, by the two convicts, who gave evidence  

against him. 

The jury instantly pronounced him guilty; and he suffered death on the third  

day after conviction.

WILLIAM COOPER AND WILLIAM DRAPER  

Convicted of cutting off Trunks from a Gentleman's Carriage; the Former  

was transported for Seven Years, and the Latter imprisoned for Six Months  

in the House of Correction, 1810

AT the Lent Assizes, 1810, at Chelmsford, in Essex, William Cooper and  

William Draper, two soldiers of the barracks in that town, were indicted for grand  

larceny, in stealing from the chariot of the Rev. Joseph Jefferson two trunks,  

containing a considerable quantity of wearing apparel, a gold ring, some books, and  

other articles of value, the property of Mr Jefferson and his servant, Joseph Sharpe. 

It appeared, from the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution, that the  

Rev. Mr Jefferson left Chelmsford in his travelling chariot between seven and eight  

o'clock in the evening of the 22nd of January, intending to go to London. The  

property before mentioned was contained in two trunks strapped behind the carriage,  

the servant, Joseph Sharpe, following his master on horseback at a short distance.  

Half-way between Chelmsford and Ingatestone the servant met a tall man going  

towards the former place with a trunk on his shoulder, which, he remarked at the time,  

resembled very much one of his master's trunks. He did not, however, entertain any  

suspicion that his master had been robbed, but on the arrival of the carriage at  

Ingatestone he missed both the trunks from behind the chariot, and found that the  

straps which held them had been cut across. This occurrence he immediately  

communicated to his master, and also mentioned the circumstance of his having met a  

man upon the road with a trunk upon his shoulder. Mr Jefferson immediately set a  

diligent inquiry on foot, and after a considerable degree of difficulty traced the  

robbery to the two prisoners, who were private soldiers, and stationed in the new  

barracks, at Chelmsford, in whose room part of the property was found, and the  

remainder concealed in a ditch. 

The prisoners strenuously denied the charge, but were both found guilty. 

Cooper was sentenced to seven years' transportation but Draper, in  

consideration of former good conduct, was ordered to be imprisoned for six months  

only, in the house of correction.

RICHARD FAULKNER  

A Boy, executed at Wisbech, in 1810, for the Murder of another Lad of  

Twelve Years of Age

RICHARD FAULKNER was, at the Summer Assizes for Norfolk, 1810,  

capitally convicted of the wilful murder of George Burnham, a lad about twelve years  

of age, at Whittlesea, on the 15th of February, by cruelly beating him to death, for no  

other cause than for revenge on Burnham's mother, who had thrown some dirty water  

upon him.  

The prisoner was not sixteen, but so shockingly depraved and hardened that  

after condemnation he repeatedly clenched his fist and threatened to murder the  

clergyman who attended the jail, or anyone who dared to approach him. Indeed he  

was so ferocious that the jailer found it necessary to chain his hands and feet to his  

dungeon, where he uttered the most horrid oaths and imprecations on all who came  

near him; and from the Friday to Saturday night refused to listen to any religious  

advice or admonition. At length, to prevent the termination of his existence in this  

depraved state, the expedient was devised of procuring a child about the size of the  

one murdered, and similar in feature and dress, whom two clergymen unexpectedly  

led between them, by the hands, into the cell, where he lay sulkily chained to the  

ground; but on their approach he started, and seemed so completely terrified that he  

trembled in every limb; cold drops of sweat profusely fell from him, and he was  

almost continuously in such a dreadful state of agitation that he entreated the  

clergymen to continue with him, and from that instant became as contrite a penitent as  

he had before been callous and insensible. In this happy transition he remained till his  

execution on Monday morning, having fully confessed his crime, and implored, by  

fervent prayer, the forgiveness of his sins from a merciful God!

EDWARD WILLIAM ROBERTS, - BROWN, and  

DOROTHY COLE, alias MRS BROWN  

Convicted in the Court of King's Bench, of a conspiracy, and the two first  

imprisoned and pilloried

SWINDLING has lately made more rapid advances than any other mode of  

plunder. The gang to which these people belonged, were particularly dangerous to  

tradesmen, from the extraordinary abilities displayed by the individuals of which it  

was composed. 

Edward William Roberts was regularly bred to the law, and about ten years  

ago was called to the bar, where his abilities promised him success in that learned and  

arduous profession. He occupied a genteel house in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's  

Inn, the furniture of which together with a library, was presented him by his intimate  

friend Major Davison. Here we find Miss Dorothy Cole, the daughter of the kind  

landlady of the Magpie on Hounslow-heath, whose smiles and good cheer will be  

long remembered by many a traveller, passing as his wife, and attended by her  

footman, though he was married, and the father of several children. 

The first dishonourable act which we find committed by Roberts, was that of  

secretly selling the bounty of his friend, and clandestinely leaving his chambers, with  

a number of debts unpaid. 

In a very short time, however, we find this loving couple much more elegantly  

situated and attended, in Dover-street, Piccadilly; where Roberts hired a furnished  

house at five guineas per week, and a chariot for Miss, while one of her brothers acted  

the part of a footman in a rich livery. Their success here was at first great, and a  

tradesman was duped out of muslin to the amount of 250L. 

It is a true saying that repetition of stolen joys renders us heedless of the  

consequences of detection. That it was so with Roberts and his mistress will be fully  

shewn in the sequel of the present very curious case. From Dover-street, it appeared  

they were perforce removed to the King's Bench. In prison, the fascinating wiles of  

Miss stole upon the peace and purse of an old sensualist (and many such characters  

frequent such a prison) who went by the appellation of captain Fisher, who soon took  

her from durance vile and snugly lodged her in Dyer's-buildings, Holborn; but  

Roberts was left alone, to lament his fate. The vicinity of St. George's-fields being ill- 

suited to the action of such a mind as our barrister's, he procured a writ of habeas  

corpus, for his removal to the Fleet prison, situated in the heart of the city of London.  

In the Fleet, he made an acquaintance with Brown, who will soon be found a  

conspicuous figure in the nefarious scenes which we have to display. Brown reported  

himself to have been an eminent brandy-merchant, and to be possessed of the title to  

lands in the United States of America, which, if we may credit Mr Imber, the  

auctioneer, in Hatton-garden, was of some small value. At any rate upon some sort of  

paper negotiation, he procured his liberty, leaving Roberts still a prisoner, but not  

without first entering into a league with him for future operations. 

Brown immediately repaired to Dyer's-buildings, took Miss from the  

protection of the old captain, hired a handsome house in Coram-street, Brunswick- 

square, wherein she entered as Mrs Brown, in mourning for the death of his supposed  

father. A job carriage was procured, with a regular suite of servants, in which they  

went as man and wife to different tradesmen, who eagerly furnished their new house  

with every kind of elegant furniture. It was some time before Roberts could get  

outside the walls of his prison, and not until the tradesmen had become importunate  

for the payment of their bills; one of whom had issued a writ, and lodged Brown with  

Wither's, the sheriff's officer. Roberts at this critical time made his appearance in  

Coram-street, claimed the goods, servants, horses, and all as his property; and Miss  

for his wife, which she readily confirmed, for of all her admirers, he certainly was the  

favourite. The remainder of the impatient tradesmen now became alarmed, and  

mistrust ran through all who had contributed to the establishment in Coram-street, and  

all now became clamorous upon Roberts. A lawyer, next to the female decoy, is the  

most useful member of a gang of swindlers, because he knows how far to go, and  

when to stop; or in other words he knows how to keep their necks out of the halter,  

though all his ingenuity is seldom proof against the pillory. Our counsellor, therefore,  

in order to extricate the whole, by a coup-de-main, drew a warrant of attorney, the  

ultimatum of law proceedings, in which Brown confessed judgment recovered by him  

for a large pretended debt, and thereupon issued execution on the devoted goods,  

pretending, however, that it was at the suit of his brother. 

Mr Rackstraw, the upholsterer, in Tottenham-court-road, and a Mr Hancock,  

an ironmonger, in the same neighbourhood, were the principal victims of this deep- 

laid scheme of villainy. 

The latter, from its consequences, added to other similar losses, in a short time  

became bankrupt. To these men, how ever, are the public indebted for bringing the  

swindlers to justice. They went to Coram-street, insisted on seeing the writ under  

which their property had been seized, and finding the pretended plaintiff to be the  

identical Edward William Roberts, saw the very extent of their danger. They posted  

off to the public-office, in Marlborough-street, and upon their disclosing the scene of  

iniquity, obtained warrants against Roberts and his lady, and lodged a caveat against  

the removal of the goods; but when the officers of justice arrived, the party  

complained of had fled. It soon appeared that in their depredations, they had  

descended to the meanest tricks-the petty chandler, the little huckster, the washer and  

mangling women, grocers, butchers, bakers, and wherever they could procure credit  

for the most trifling score, surrounded their house. Their servants found themselves  

unpaid, left to shift for themselves; and the unhappy coachman, anxious to serve an  

old fellow-servant who had commenced coal-merchant, had become responsible for  

his master's cellar of coals, and was saddled with the payment. 

Meantime the defeated lawyer with his fair one had secretly fled to private  

furnished lodgings, at the house of Mr Thomas Prior, coal-merchant, No. 24,  

Salisbury-street, Strand, where she was brought to bed of a daughter, his  

acknowledged child, but according to the report of the nurse, 'the very spit of the old  

captain.' Nor were the runners after them idle. They, from whom no villain on whom a  

good price is set, can long be hid, soon found their way to Salisbury-street; and on  

their approach, Roberts ran to the top of the house, but, alas! too late to find his safety  

in flight. Having seized him, they entered the chamber of accouchement; but, as 'tis  

said on one sad occasion, 'even butchers wept'; they too, though also, 'unused to the  

melting mood', retired under the influence of modesty and pity, and left the new-made  

parent awhile to her sorrows.  

At Marlborough-street, appeared as counsel for Roberts, Mr Marriot, an  

advocate worthy of a better cause. The prisoner, also a pleader, spoke long and with  

ingenuity in his defence, while his brother counsellor also in vain exerted his  

eloquence. The hateful mittimus was signed, and Roberts safely lodged in Clerkenwell  

prison. 

It will be here but justice to observe, that Miss Cole, for she certainly never  

legally put aside her maiden name, was a woman of considerable acquired  

accomplishments. She had already published a novel, by subscription; but its nervous  

language plainly shewed it to have been the production of Roberts; and it was, in fact,  

a well written rhapsody. In search of subscribers, her manners, and affected artless  

tale, imposed upon the benevolent hearts of lady Haggerstone and lady Louisa  

Manners. With such patronage, no wonder the book was prefaced with a long list of  

fashionable contributors. The former of these noble ladies particularly interested  

herself in the welfare of Miss; called upon her in her own coach, accompanied by Mrs  

Siddons, (not the actress), called in Salisbury-street during the accouchement, left her  

purse, and promised to exert herself in procuring some employ for her husband,  

believing her to be the wife of Roberts. This generous act took place only a few days  

previous to his apprehension. 

The supposed Mrs Roberts was now perfectly recovered-the month was  

elapsed, and no enquiries had been made after her from Marlborough-street. Before  

this time, however, Prior the landlord, had certainly cause sufficient for alarm,  

touching his rent, and on this he spoke. The luxurious old captain, who had never  

neglected his occasional visits, with ample remuneration for each, on this occasion not  

only came forward and paid up all arrears, but sent money to the prisoner in  

Clerkenwell. 

Notwithstanding the fate of Roberts, and the very precarious situation in which  

this infatuated woman stood, still she remained in fancied security, upon the bounty of  

the old dotard. Not so with those who still held a warrant against her, for so keen were  

they to their trust, that they had sifted the nurse out on the day of the birth of the child,  

nor did they suffer another day of the next month to close without another visit to  

Salisbury-street, when, without any difficulty, they made their caption, and carried the  

mother, accompanied by the nurse and babe, to that tribunal from whence Roberts had  

been already committed. Her crime having already been investigated, little could be  

adduced in her defence, and she was sent to her pretended husband. In prison,  

however, she did not remain longer than a week, as this kind captain procured her  

bail, and money to hire more comfortable lodgings, which she found, in  

Amphitheatre-row, Surrey side of Westminster bridge, where she remained secluded  

five weeks: a life ill suited to her active mind. We next find her in a more central  

situation, but yet in humble apartments, a furnished second floor in Theobald's-row,  

Bedford-row; and there, strange to tell, Roberts once more joined her, having at length  

been liberated upon bail. In Theobald's-road, they got a prospectus printed of another  

novel, to be called, 'The Mysterious Mother,' and with this, neatly enveloped in gilt  

paper, and sealed with a seal bearing the initial R. she long employed her time, on foot  

now, in going from one noble mansion to the other, soliciting subscriptions. 

So little do the major part of the great fatigue themselves in reading the detail  

of criminal enquiries, at public offices, that few had read the many long accounts of  

her commitment, and in order to rid themselves of her perpetual importunities,  

subscribed to 'The Mysterious Mother'; upon which Roberts and herself subsisted  

until they were brought to trial. The third unlucky conspirator, Brown, was again  

caged in the Fleet prison. 

The trial of this gang stood upon the docket at Hicks' Hall, but as the fish out  

of the frying pan jumped into the fire, they removed their case into the court of king's  

bench, a far more dread tribunal, but doubtless with the desperate hope that Rackstraw  

and Hancock would not be at the great expense of following them. Here they were  

again disappointed, for the injured tradesmen followed them up, and the attorney- 

general led the prosecution against them; Mr Marriot did all that man could do in a  

bad cause, but they were all found guilty, and sentence postponed until the next term,  

as usual in such cases. Though convicted, they were, until sentence was pronounced,  

still upon bail. In the meantime it was reported that death had put an end to the career  

of Miss Dorothy Cole; and whether true or otherwise, she certainly has not since  

appeared upon the grand theatre of wealth and villainy, London. 

Roberts and Brown, however, still lived the dread of honest tradesmen; but as  

in the capital they were now too well known, they shifted their operations to its  

environs. The public papers soon announced them to be at Cheshunt, a few miles  

distant. There they played off their old game of hiring a house, and getting it  

handsomely furnished. We are not in possession of the particulars of the Cheshunt  

swindling; but we know that there they were again detected, prosecuted, tried at the  

assizes for Hertfordshire, and again sentenced to imprisonment and the pillory. 

The first convictions, however, must be first satisfied; and for this purpose  

they were brought into Westminster Hall, and sentenced to a years imprisonment and  

pillory. The latter was put in force at Charing-cross, in July, 1810, when the enraged  

populace severely pelted them with rotten eggs, and all manner of filth, which could  

be suddenly collected, until they bore little resemblance of human beings; and were  

taken out half suffocated.

RICHARD VALENTINE THOMAS  

Executed at the New Prison, in Horsemonger Lane, 3rd of September, 1810,  

for Forgery

RICHARD VALENTINE THOMAS was indicted for forging and uttering,  

knowing it to be forged, a cheque for the sum of four hundred pounds, eight shillings  

on Messrs Smith, Paine & Smyth, of George Street, Mansion House, purporting to be  

drawn by Messrs Diffell & Son. 

Mr Bolland having stated the indictment, Mr Gurney opened the case, by  

which it appeared that the prisoner, in the month of July, 1810, who was in the habit  

of frequenting the Surrey Theatre, in Blackfriars Road, and the Equestrian Coffee- 

House contiguous to it, applied to a man of the name of Exton, who was waiter at the  

coffee-house, to go to Messrs Smith & Co. and get the bank-book of Messrs Diffell.  

This enabled him to ascertain the balance of money which Messrs D. had in the hands  

of their banker. He then sent the book back by the same person, with a request to have  

a cheque-book. He received one, and filled up a cheque for four hundred pounds,  

eight shillings, and delivered it to Mr Johnson, the box and house keeper of the Surrey  

Theatre, with whom he appeared to be upon intimate terms. He told him he had some  

custom and excise duties to pay, and requested him to get payment for the cheque in  

notes of ten and twenty pounds. The cheque was drawn, accordingly, "Pay duties or  

bearer," etc. Johnson went to Messrs Smith, but as they could not pay him as he  

wished, he received from them two notes of two hundred pounds each, which he  

immediately took to the bank and exchanged for the notes the prisoner had desired  

him to get. The forgery was soon detected, and the prisoner was taken into custody, in  

company with a woman with whom he cohabited. Upon searching her, a twenty- 

pound note was found, which was identified by a clerk of the bank as having been  

given to Johnson in exchange for the two notes of two hundred pounds. The prisoner  

and his companion were locked up in separate rooms. When the woman was asked  

where she had got the note of twenty pounds, she replied the prisoner gave it her; but  

he, being within hearing, immediately called out: "No, you got it from a gentleman.".  

Before they were removed from these rooms the officers searched a privy  

communicating with the room in which the woman was confined, and found  

fragments of notes of ten and twenty pounds to the amount of three hundred and sixty  

pounds, and upon several of the pieces were the dates corresponding with the entry of  

the clerk of the bank. In addition to this, Mrs Johnson, the mistress of the Equestrian  

Coffee-House, produced a twenty-pound note which she had received from the  

prisoner on the same day the cheque was presented, and this made up the whole four  

hundred pounds. 

The fact of the forgery being established by Mr Diffell, who had for that  

purpose been released by Messrs Smith & Co., the jury without hesitation returned the  

verdict of guilty, and sentence of death was passed. The prisoner was a young man of  

very genteel appearance. He died a penitent.

HENRY GRIFFIN  

Indicted at the Old Bailey, at the September Sessions, 1810, for the Murder  

of his Wife, found guilty of Manslaughter, and fined

HENRY GRIFFIN was indicted at the Old Bailey for the wilful murder of  

Ann, his wife, by severing her windpipe with a razor, on the 4th of September, 1810.  

The prisoner was a journeyman blacksmith, and resided in Onslow Street, Saffron  

Hill. The deceased was a woman of vicious habits, such as infidelity, drunkenness,  

etc. She had been from home a day and a night previous to the 4th, and the prisoner,  

accompanied by his brother and sister, met her in Bartholomew Fair on the evening of  

that day; and after treating her with gin, at her request, they all returned to the  

prisoner's lodgings, which they entered without a light. A few minutes after the  

prisoner's sister called out: "Murder!" On some of the neighbours going into the room,  

they found the deceased with her throat cut; and by signs she made to their  

interrogatories it was understood that her husband had murdered her. The prisoner  

was found near the house, and on being questioned about the murder he did not deny  

it, but added that he hoped she was dead, as he did not mind being hanged for her, and  

that he should die happy. He contended that she had brought men under his nose, and  

supplanted him in his bed, and threatened that her lovers should chastise him. 

He was discharged on paying a small fine to the King.

WILLIAM HITCHIN  

Transported for Seven Years for stealing an Exchequer Bill, September,  

1810

AT the sessions at the Old Bailey, September, 1810, this man, an old offender,  

better known in London as the celebrated Bill Hitchin, was tried before a London  

jury, for having, in the month of July, 1806, stolen from the warehouse of Messrs  

Kent, London Wall, upholsterers, one Exchequer bill, of the value of one hundred  

pounds. 

It appeared that the warehouse of the prosecutors was burglariously broken  

open, and plundered of various property, to the amount of several hundred pounds, at  

the period above mentioned, and no trace of the robbers could be obtained till two  

years afterwards, when the prisoner, being apprehended in the county of Warwick for  

an offence committed there, was being searched, and the Exchequer bill mentioned in  

the indictment was found upon his person. Having been convicted of the crime at that  

time imputed to him, and suffered imprisonment for the same, there was no  

opportunity of bringing him up for trial here till the period of his imprisonment in  

Warwick jail had expired. That having lately taken place, he was now put to the bar to  

answer to this charge. 

The case being gone through on the part of the prosecution, Mr Alley, his  

counsel, submitted that it was not made out according to law against the prisoner: that  

the indictment having stated that the prisoner had stolen an Exchequer bill, it was  

incumbent on the prosecutor to prove that it was an Exchequer bill, which he failed to  

do. The Court, however, overruled the objection, and the prisoner was found guilty. It  

being a grand larceny, the prisoner had his clergy, but was sentenced to seven years'  

transportation.

THOMAS BELLAMY AND JOHN LANEY  

Watchmen, convicted of assaulting those whom they were bound to protect,  

September, 1810

AT the sessions of the Old Bailey held in September, 1810, Thomas Bellamy  

and John Laney, watchmen, belonging to the parish of St George's, Bloomsbury, were  

indicted for assaulting Mr Hindeson and his wife. The watchmen had indicted  

Hindeson and his wife for an assault on them, so that the jury had to try what is  

termed a cross-indictment. 

It appeared that on the 1st of April, at two o'clock in the morning, Hindeson  

and his wife were going home-they residing in Stonecutters' Buildings, Lincoln's Inn  

Fields-when Hindeson, from the street, discovered a light in his apartment, at which  

he was somewhat alarmed, thinking that thieves were in the house, and with that  

persuasion of mind called the watch. Three came, and he desired them to remain at the  

door with his wife whilst he went upstairs to see everything was as it should be. They  

did so, and upstairs he went. Shortly afterwards he returned, informing them that all  

was right-that the light proceeded from his fire-and thanked them for their trouble.  

The watchmen, it seemed, took umbrage at being "made fools of," as they termed it,  

and wanted to be paid for their trouble in doing their duty; and on Hindeson doing  

nothing more than thank them for the trouble he had given them they were inclined to  

have from his bones what they could not get from his pocket-satisfaction! They  

attacked both Hindeson and his wife with their bludgeons, and after cutting him  

violently on the head, and tearing almost all the clothes off his back (the tattered and  

blood-stained remains of which were exposed in court), they insisted on carrying  

Hindeson to the watch-house, and he remained under confinement for thirty-seven  

hours. 

The watchmen, finding that Hindeson was going to proceed against them,  

indicted him and his wife for an assault; and they swore that they saw nobody strike  

either him or his wife, nor did they strike either of them till Hindeson and his wife  

began to maul them, when some blows might have been given in getting Hindeson to  

the watchhouse. This and much more swore the two watchmen; but there was neither  

circumstantial evidence nor tattered and blood-stained clothes to support their tale.  

Such being the case, with the total absence of all kind of evidence on the part of the  

watchmen, they were found guilty on the indictment preferred against them by  

Hindeson, and fined and imprisoned.

JOHN DAVISON, ESQ.  

A Captain in the Royal Marines, convicted of stealing a Piece of Muslin  

from a Shopkeeper at Taunton, 13th of November, 1810

AT the assizes held on the 13th of November, 1810, for the county of  

Somerset, before Sir Soulden Laurence, Captain John Davison, of the Royal Marines,  

was indicted for stealing a piece of muslin, of the value of thirty shillings, the property  

of James Bunter, mercer, of Taunton. 

Mr Gazelee opened the indictment. 

Mr Jeryle then stated the circumstance of the case to the jury, and observed he  

had seldom, in the discharge of his professional duty, a more painful task to perform  

than to detail the evidence which he had to adduce, in order to substantiate the charge  

in the indictment, which charged the prisoner with the crime of felony. The facts were  

few, short, but cogent, and, he feared, irresistible. They would come better from the  

witnesses than from any statement of his. He would proceed to call them. 

The first witness was Alexander Baller, who said: "I am an apprentice to Mr  

James Bunter, of Taunton. I know Captain Davison, He came to my master's house on  

the 25th of July, at half-past seven in the morning; there was no one in the shop but  

myself; he asked if Mr Bunter was up. I told him he was, and on that he went away.  

Mr Bunter came into the shop in about five minutes, and, on seeing someone go by  

with whom he wished to speak, walked out towards the parade. Captain Davison came  

in again immediately after. I was cleaning the windows on the outside of the shop. On  

Captain Davison's again going into the shop I followed him. He asked to look at the  

muslins he had seen the night before, and walked to the lower end of the shop to the  

counter on the right hand, and I carried to him ten or twelve pieces as he was sitting  

on the counter. He took the first I showed him in his hand, and very carelessly laid it  

by his side, and he did the same with some other pieces. After looking at them some  

time he went towards the door; but, before that, he had thrown his handkerchief upon  

four or five of the pieces, which he had folded up. When at the door he asked me how  

the handkerchief he had on looked, and whether we had any of the same. I told him  

we had none of them. He asked me for a looking-glass. I told him we had none but  

what was fixed, but if he would walk into the parlour he might see there; to this he  

made no reply. He then sat down in a chair rather below where the muslin was, and  

asked to look at some stockings at about five shillings a pair, for his brother; before  

this I had taken away the pieces of muslin that were not covered over. There was at  

this time a piece under his handkerchief, which I could plainly perceive. I took him  

out some stockings from the opposite side of the shop, but kept my eyes on him, and I  

observed him draw his handkerchief from the counter into his lap with both his hands.  

I observed the muslin was still under the handkerchief as he drew it towards him. He  

then asked for some fashionable waistcoat patterns; I went across to the other counter  

to get him some. My face was towards him, and I observed him take up the  

handkerchief and squeeze it together, and put it under the left lapel of his coat; he took  

the patterns of the waistcoats, as he said he wished to show them first to Yandell, his  

tailor. At this time his arm was over his coat towards his lapel where he had put his  

handkerchief, and he walked out of the shop. Mr Bunter came into the shop whilst  

Captain Davison was there, but stayed only two or three minutes. I missed the first  

piece of muslin I had showed him immediately after his going out. It was marked with  

'O/G S/R'; the 'S' had been altered, it had been an 'I'. When I missed the muslin I rang  

the bell, and Mr Bunter came. I described to him what had happened and the  

particular piece which was missing, and that Captain Davison was gone to Yandell's.  

Mr Bunter left the shop to go to Yandell's through Hammet Street; I then went out and  

saw Captain Davison standing at Mr Bluett's shop door. When I perceived Captain  

Davison was not gone to Yandell's I called to Mr Bunter aloud, and Davison walked  

by the market-house towards his own lodgings. At the time I showed Captain Davison  

the first piece I took notice of the mark." 

Cross-examined by Mr Serjeant Pell: "I had seen the piece of muslin lost the  

preceding evening. Captain Davison had purchased a yard of ribbon the day before.  

On my calling to Mr Bunter, Captain Davison retired from Mr Bluett's shop." 

Charles Sutton, constable of Taunton, said "I went, in company with another  

constable, to search the house of Mr Owen; we first went into a bedchamber, and then  

into a drawing-room. Captain Davison was not there. In the chamber there was a trunk  

with Captain Davison's name on it, on a brass plate; we broke it open, and found in it  

this piece of muslin." 

Alexander Baller identified the piece of muslin to be the one lost, and that it  

was Bunter's property. 

Mr Bunter said: "The marks on the muslin are my writing, the muslin is my  

property, and worth more than thirty shillings. In ten minutes after the search the  

muslin was brought to me, and I knew it." 

Alexander Baller, called again, said he had never sold that piece. 

Here the evidence for the prosecution closed. 

Colonel Mears, T. Woodford, Esq., Surgeon Bryant, R. Morgan, Esq., Rev. Mr  

Townsend, Rev. F. H. Clapp, H. C. Standart, Esq., and the Rev. D. Webber, all of  

whom were persons of the first respectability, and who had known the prisoner nearly  

two years, severally gave him an excellent character. 

The judge then summed up the evidence, and told the jury that, however they  

might lament that a gentleman of the prisoner's condition in life, holding the rank of a  

Captain in the Royal Marines, and who had borne so high and honourable a character  

till the present time, should on the present occasion have forfeited that character, and  

have forgotten his situation, it was their duty, if they were satisfied with the evidence  

they had heard, to find him guilty, however painful the discharge of that duty might  

be. Character, in cases where a fair doubt could be entertained, ought to have  

considerable weight with a jury. But on the contrary, where the facts were clear, and  

established by credible witnesses, however good the character of the prisoner might  

have been up to the time of committing the felony, it was no excuse for the  

commission of it. And unless they could say that the prisoner, at the time of drawing  

the handkerchief from the counter with both his hands, as the witness Baller stated,  

was ignorant that the muslin was contained in it, he did not know how to state to them  

a ground of doubt. The muslin, as they saw, was of considerable bulk, and not likely  

to be contained in a silk handkerchief without its being perceived by the prisoner, and  

if they thought so, it was their duty to say that he was guilty. 

The jury, after a few seconds' consideration, returned a verdict of guilty.  

Sentence-transportation.

MARY JONES AND ELIZABETH PAINE  

Transported for Seven Years, November Sessions, 1810, at the Old Bailey  

for Shoplifting

THE treacherous species of theft commonly called "shop-lifting" had at this  

time spread into provincial places of trade. In London it had long been a favourite  

mode of plunder among abandoned females. In order to carry on their depredations, a  

conspiracy was formed of two or more abandoned women, who, well dressed, went  

together into shops and, while one bargained and paid for some small articles, the  

others secreted whatever they could lay their hands upon. In general they were  

provided with long cloaks, large pockets and wide petticoats, wherein they concealed  

their plunder. 

Mary Jones and Elizabeth Paine stood indicted for privately stealing, on the  

30th of October, 1809, twelve pairs of stockings, the property of Robert Kenyon, a  

hosier, on Holborn Hill. The value of the goods was four pounds eighteen shillings. It  

appeared, from the testimony of Robert Kenyon, that the women were in the shop on  

the 30th of October; they were cheapening flannel, and went away after buying some  

trifle. On their leaving the shop he missed the parcel of stockings, which was hung on  

a chair near where the women were, but found the invoice which he had tucked into  

the parcel. He instantly pursued the women, and found them at a shop window in  

Holborn looking at some paper, and tearing something by the light of the shop. He  

charged them with having his stockings They denied it, and he proceeded to push  

them into the shop, when a gentleman gave him a parcel of stockings which he said  

one of the women had dropped. 

The common serjeant, after a suitable admonition to the prisoners on the  

heinousness of their offence, and the subsequent aggravation of it by their conduct,  

assured them that it was a great stretch of the jury's humanity that they were not  

capitally convicted. In order-as well as to punish them-to deter all others who might  

be pursuing the same courses, the Court sentenced them to transportation for seven  

years.

THOMAS KIMPTON  

Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, December, 1810 of a Violent Assault  

on a Juryman of the Court Leet, and sentenced to Imprisonment

THOMAS KIMPTON, who kept a butcher's shop near the turnpike, Islington  

Road, was put to the bar charged on an indictment with violently assaulting a  

gentleman of the leet jury of that district in the latter part of the summer in a most  

violent manner, and obstructing him in the discharge of his duty. 

It appeared from the statement of Mr Walford, counsel for the prosecution,  

that the gentlemen who comprised the said leet jury were out on the day mentioned in  

the indictment, and had seized several fraudulent weights, scales and measures. In the  

progress of their duty they approached the shop of the defendant, and the prosecutor,  

being then accompanied by only one of his associates, instantly laid hold of two  

weights in the shop of the defendant, both of which were deficient according to law,  

and so were seized. The defendant contended that they were of the due weight, but the  

prosecutor asserted, and showed, the contrary. From words they came to blows, and  

the defendant struck and beat the prosecutor till he was rescued from his hands by the  

interference of his neighbours. 

Some attempts were made to palliate the case, but the jury, without any  

hesitation, found the defendant guilty. 

Mr Watson, who presided for Mr Mainwaring, the chairman, animadverted in  

very strong language upon the conduct of the defendant) and adjudged that he should  

be sent to the house of correction, Coldbath Fields, for the space of one calendar  

month.

WILLIAM BRITTON  

Convicted at the Sessions at the Old Bailey, December, 1810, of stealing  

from a coffee-house bedroom, and sentenced to transportation

WILLIAM BRITTON alias Symer Mark Taylor, a stout-looking young man,  

was indicted for stealing thirty-five guineas, a half-guinea in gold, and four foreign  

pieces of gold coin, called moors, of the value of four guineas, from Andrew M'Intyre,  

Esq. 

The prisoner went into the Cannon Coffee-House at Charing Cross, about  

three o'clock on the 17th of November, dressed in a naval uniform. He ordered dinner,  

and in the course of dinner asked the waiter if there were any other naval officers then  

in the house. Being informed that there were two or three naval gentlemen then in the  

house, he ordered a bed, and went out about six o'clock, on pretence of going to the  

play. He returned to the coffee-house at half-past nine, saying he had come away  

before the after-piece, ordered supper, and was shown to bed at half-past ten. Shortly  

after, the chambermaid, being in a room immediately under the prisoner, heard a noise  

over her head, and entering the room of Lieutenant Maitland, which adjoined the  

prisoner's, she found that Mr Maitland's trunk had been taken out of his room. Having  

communicated this to her master, he went up to the prisoner's room, which was  

locked. The prisoner admitted the landlord, and threw himself into bed, lying between  

the sheets with his clothes and boots on. A number of articles were perceived  

scattered about the room. The landlord immediately locked up the prisoner. Having  

procured an officer, his room was searched, when they found Mr Maitland's trunk,  

which had been forced open. Eighteen guineas, two of the foreign coins and some  

linen were also found in a chest of drawers in the room; and two guineas, in a piece of  

brown paper, and a chisel, under the mattress. The rest of the money for which the  

prisoner was indicted was found upon him the next day, in one of his boots. Mr  

M'Intyre, to whom this money belonged, had requested Mr Maitland to place it for  

security in his trunk. The prisoner's sorry appearance could have hardly allowed one  

to suppose that he had ever successfully personated a gentleman. Found guilty- 

transportation.

JOSEPH MOSES  

Convicted in 1811 of receiving the Skins of Royal Swans from the Serpentine  

River, in Hyde Park, knowing them to have been stolen

IN the beginning of the year 1811 the swans of the Serpentine river were  

missing; and, on search after them, their bodies were found on its banks, stripped of  

skin and feathers. The runners of justice soon began a pursuit of the uncommon  

robber, and in a short time traced the feathers, which had been sent by an Israelite to  

one Ryder, to be dressed, for the decoration of pretty Christian misses. 

Moses, not being able to convince Limerick, the Christian catch-poll who  

seized him, of his honestly coming by the plumage of the royal birds, was taken  

before a Bench of Magistrates, who committed him for trial. 

On the 5th of April, 1811, he was brought up to the bar of the sessions-house  

at Hicks's Hall, charged with having received into his possession six swans' skins,  

knowing them to have been stolen. William Baker, the first witness called, stated that  

he was park-keeper under the Right Hon. Lord Euston, Ranger of Hyde Park; there  

were six swans kept in the Serpentine river, two of which had been stolen in the latter  

part of January, 1811, and he found the carcasses of the remaining four lying on the  

bank of the pond, the skins having been stripped from them. A few days after,  

Limerick, the officer of Bow Street, brought six skins to him, which, on being applied  

to the carcasses, were found exactly to correspond, and so he had no doubt they were  

the stolen skins. 

A man of the name of Devine, and an officer of the name of Lack, proved  

finding six swans' skins in the possession of the prisoner; they were hanging up in his  

shop in Welbeck Street, where they were found. 

A young woman of the name of Mary Brush, who had been his servant, but  

who had recently quitted his service, proved that on Monday evening, the 25th of  

February, 1811, her master came home about five o'clock, and had something  

wrapped up in a bundle. She saw him open it in the parlour and take two swans' skins  

out of it. She further deposed that on Tuesday, the 26th, a man came to her master's  

house, and asked if Mr Moses was at home, and left four more swans' skins. 

A person of the name of Hart swore that he saw the defendant buy two swans'  

skins in Leadenhall Market, and give two pounds for them, on Monday, the 25th of  

February. He was not believed. 

It appeared, however, that the skins tallied exactly with the bodies of the dead  

swans; for, wherever a part of the skin stuck to the bodies, a part in the same position  

was equally wanting from the skins. 

Several persons-of the Hebrew persuasion and others-gave the defendant a  

good character; some knew him upwards of twenty years. 

The chairman summed up the evidence, and the jury, after retiring upwards of  

half-an-hour, returned a verdict of guilty. 

As soon as the verdict was recorded, Mr Alley, counsel for the prisoner, raised  

some objections to the indictment, contending that, swans being what in law is termed  

ferae naturae, the stealing of them did not amount to a larceny; and, as there was no  

thief, there could not therefore be any receiving. 

The counsel on the other side contended to the contrary, and the Court  

overruled the objections. The prisoner was fined, and imprisoned.

EDWARD BEAZLEY  

A Boy, whipped in Newgate for destroying Women's Apparel with Aqua  

Fortis, 11th of March, 1811

UNTIL severe examples were made of the actors in this kind of "frolic and  

fun," females often found their clothes drop to tatters, and such as restricted  

themselves to mere muslin and chemise were frequently dreadfully burned, in a way  

invisible and almost unaccountable. A set of urchins and chaps, neither men nor boys,  

by way of a "high game," procured aqua fortis, vitriol and other corrosive liquids, and  

filling therewith a syringe, or bottle, sallied forth to give the girls "a squirt." 

Of this mischievous description we find Edward Beazley, who was convicted  

of this unpardonable offence at the Old Bailey, the 11th of March, 1811. 

He was indicted for wilfully and maliciously injuring and destroying the  

apparel of Anne Parker, which she was wearing, by feloniously throwing upon the  

same a certain poisonous substance called aqua-fortis, whereby the same was so  

injured as to be rendered useless and of no value. He was also charged upon two other  

indictments for the like offence, on the prosecution of two other women. 

It appeared that the prisoner, a little boy about thirteen years old, took it into  

his head to sally into Fleet Street, on the night of Saturday, 16th of February, and  

there threw the liquid upon the clothes of several ladies. He was caught, carried before  

the sitting magistrate at Guildhall, and fully committed, on three several charges. 

Three ladies appeared, and proved the facts stated in the indictments, and  

exhibited their burned garments, such as pelisses, gowns and other articles, which  

were literally burned to riddles. 

He was found guilty. 

His master, Mr Blades, an eminent chemist on Ludgate Hill, gave him a good  

character for honesty; he never knew anything wrong of him before, but he  

acknowledged that he had access to both vitriol and aqua fortis.  

The Court, having a discretionary power under the Act of Parliament, instead  

of transporting him for seven years, only ordered him to be well whipped in the jail,  

and returned to his friends.

WILLIAM TOWNLEY  

Convicted of Burglary, and executed at Gloucester, 23rd of March, 1811, a  

Few Minutes before a Reprieve arrived

WILLIAM TOWNLEY had received sentence of death at Gloucester, for  

burglary, and was left for execution. A short time after the departure of the judge  

towards Hereford, the next assize town, he was informed of some circumstances  

favourable to the case of the prisoner, and, in consequence thereof, he granted a  

reprieve. By a fatal mistake this reprieve was directed by the clerk to Mr Wilton,  

under-sheriff of Herefordshire, in place of Gloucestershire, and put into the post office  

at Hereford. There it remained until the letters were delivered next morning, time  

enough for it to have reached Gloucester. When Messrs Bird and Woolaston, the  

under-sheriffs for Herefordshire, opened the packet, seeing its import of life or death,  

they dispatched Mr Bennet of the hotel with it, upon a fleet horse, to the place of its  

destination, thirty-four miles away; but, melancholy to relate, he arrived at the spot of  

execution twenty minutes too late; the culprit having been hanging on the gallows that  

time, and dead.

MICHAEL WHITING  

Methodist Preacher, sentenced to Death for poisoning his Two Brothers-in- 

Law, with an Intent to possess himself of their Property, 1811

AT the Isle of Ely Assizes in 1811, Michael Whiting, a shopkeeper in  

Downham, near Ely, and a dissenting preacher, was indicted, under Lord  

Ellenborough's Act, on a charge of administering poison to George Langman and to  

Joseph Langman, his brothers-in-law. 

It appeared in evidence that the Langmans resided together at Downham, and  

were small farmers; and that their family consisted of themselves, a sister named  

Sarah about ten years of age, and a female domestic, of the name of Catharine Carter,  

who acted as their housekeeper and servant. They had another sister, who was married  

to the prisoner. On the morning of Tuesday, the 12th of March, 1811, they sent their  

sister to the prisoner's house to borrow a loaf. The prisoner returned with her, and  

brought a loaf with him, and told the Langmans that, as he understood their  

housekeeper was going on a visit to her friends for a day or two, he would bring them  

some flour and pork to make a pudding for their dinner. He went away, and shortly  

afterwards returned with a basin of flour, and pork. Addressing himself to the  

housekeeper he said: "Catharine, be sure you make the boys a pudding before you  

go." He then took the young child home with him to dinner. The housekeeper made  

two puddings, but observed the flour would not properly adhere; she left them in a  

kneading trough, and the Langmans boiled one of them for dinner. The diners had  

hardly swallowed two or three mouthfuls before they were taken exceedingly ill, and  

seized with violent vomiting. Suspecting the pudding had been poisoned, one of the  

Langmans gave a small piece to a sow in the yard, which swallowed it, and was  

immediately taken sick and, after lingering some time, died. The elder brother soon  

recovered, but the younger one continued in a precarious state for several days. The  

remnants of the pudding were analysed by Mr Woolaston, professor of chemistry at  

the University of Cambridge, and found to contain a considerable quantity of  

corrosive sublimate of mercury. The prisoner, who it appeared was a dealer in flour,  

attempted to account for the pudding being poisoned by stating that he had lately laid  

some nux vomica to poison some vermin, and that some of it must accidentally have  

been carried into his flour-bin. Mr Woolaston, however, positively stated that the  

pudding contained no other poisonous ingredient than corrosive sublimate; and it  

came out in evidence that the prisoner, who sold drugs, had purchased of the person  

whom he succeeded in business a considerable quantity of that poison. It also  

appeared that the flourbins belonging to the prisoner had been searched, and that  

immediately upon its being discovered that the Langmans had taken poison the  

prisoner had emptied his bins and washed them out. 

Mr Alley, from London, conducted the prisoner's defence. The trial lasted till  

six o'clock at night; and the jury, after deliberating about ten minutes, found the  

prisoner guilty. The judge immediately passed sentence of death, and he was left for  

execution.

RICHARD ARMITAGE AND C. THOMAS  

Clerks in the Bank of England, executed before Newgate, 24th of June,  

1811, for Forgery

FORGERY was formerly an offence which was never pardoned, a  

determination on the part of the Crown laid down in the cases of the Perreaus and of  

Doctor Dodd, whom no interest could save from an ignominious death. The ancient  

punishment for this crime was thus minutely described in a London periodical  

publication for the year 1731: 

"June 9th.-- This day, about noon, Japhet Crook, alias St Peter Stranger, was  

brought to the pillory at Charing Cross, according to his sentence for forgery. He  

stood an hour thereon; after which a chair was set on the pillory; and he being put  

therein, the hangman with a sort of pruning knife cut off both his ears, and  

immediately a surgeon clapt a styptic thereon. Then the executioner, with a pair of  

scissors, cut his left nostril twice before it was quite through, and afterwards cut  

through the right nostril at once. He bore all this with great patience; but when, in  

pursuance of his sentence, his right nostril was seared with a red-hot iron, he was in  

such violent pain that his left nostril was let alone, and he went from the pillory  

bleeding. He was conveyed from thence to the King's Bench Prison, there to remain  

for life. He died in confinement about three years after." 

The crime for which Armitage and Thomas suffered was of the very worst  

description of forgery-a scandalous breach of public trust-a robbery upon the very  

corporation they were bound to protect from the nefarious attempts of others. They  

long had practised impositions on the Bank of England, unsuspected, and in the  

meantime maintained a show of integrity. 

Towards the latter end of August, 1810, Robert Roberts was apprehended on  

suspicion of being concerned in the many forgeries which for some time had been  

practised on the Bank of England and the commercial part of the metropolis. He was  

brought to one of the public offices, and from thence remanded to the house of  

correction in Coldbath Fields. In a few days, in company with another prisoner, of the  

name of Harper, he effected his escape, and the public were surprised at seeing large  

printed sheets of paper pasted on the walls of the City, announcing this extraordinary  

circumstance, and offering a large reward for their apprehension, but particularly for  

the discovery of Roberts, the other belonging merely to the gangs of smaller rogues. 

Notwithstanding the large reward offered for his apprehension, Roberts  

evaded the strict search of justice. It was known that he had carried off a considerable  

sum of money: his proportion of the success of the forgeries wherein he was  

implicated, and for which only the unfortunate subjects of this case suffered. At length  

he was identified at a tavern on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge, where he had  

taken up his lodgings as a private country gentleman detained in town on his own  

concerns. 

Roberts, to save his own life, impeached Armitage and Thomas, two clerks  

filling places of great trust in the Bank of England, as the immediate agents of the  

many forgeries which had been of late committed on that corporation; and he was  

admitted evidence against them on the part of the Crown. 

Richard Armitage was first apprehended: he was brought to the public office  

in Marlborough Street on the 8th of April, 1810; and after a short examination was  

committed to the New Prison, for trial at the next Old Bailey sessions. Among the  

witnesses bound over to give evidence against him was Mrs Roberts, the mistress of  

his base accuser. His forgeries of dividend warrants were to the amount of two  

thousand, four hundred pounds. 

On the 2nd of May following, C. Thomas was apprehended and brought to the  

same office, on a charge of having forged several dividend warrants; and, after three  

separate examinations, was also committed for trial. 

This prisoner was a bank clerk in the Imperial Annuity Office, and the  

warrants forged were to obtain the dividends of a person who had been dead about  

three years, and whose executors had not applied for his property. It appeared that  

three hundred and sixty pounds had been paid out of the bank, and the prisoner's name  

was signed as an attesting witness. It was also proved that bank-notes, with which the  

dividends were paid, were found in the prisoner's possession. Under these  

circumstances the prisoner was fully committed for trial. This was one of the cases  

disclosed by Roberts. 

Armitage was fully committed, and Roberts and his wife were the principal  

witnesses against him. 

The trials of these unfortunate men were unattended by any other circumstance  

worth noticing, further than that, independent of the evidence of Roberts and his wife- 

which, unsupported, would have received little credit-full proof was adduced of their  

guilt. They were consequently found guilty, and received sentence of death. 

On the 24th of June, 1811, Armitage and Thomas were executed at the Old  

Bailey, pursuant to their sentence. The former, from severe illness, was under the  

necessity of being supported by a friend while ascending-and during his continuance  

on the scaffold.

MARY GREEN  

Convicted of putting off Base Coin, and sentenced to Six Months'  

Imprisonment, 5th of April, 1811

AT the sessions for Middlesex held on the 5th of April, 1811, Mary Green, a  

decent-looking girl, was found guilty of putting off two bad shillings to Mr Harris, a  

linen-draper, in Pickett Street, Temple Bar. 

She went into Mr Harris's shop and asked for small silver for a dollar. Mr  

Harris gave it to her. She walked two or three yards up the shop and, addressing  

herself to the shopman, told him that his master had given her two bad shillings. This  

Mr Harris denied, and refused to take them. She then conducted herself most rudely;  

whereupon a constable was sent for. Before he arrived she still persisted in her  

impudent behaviour, saying that she had no more money about her but the dollar.  

Lack, the officer, soon arrived, and searched her, and there was found concealed about  

her twelve shillings and four sixpences, all in good silver, besides the change of the  

dollar. 

The jury, after a charge from Mr Mainwaring, found her guilty. 

As soon as the verdict was pronounced, the counsel for the prosecution then  

acquainted the Court that, as the punishment was pointed out by Act of Parliament,  

from which they could not deviate, and therefore the prisoner's cause could not be  

affected by the profligacy of her character, he thought it right to mention that this was  

the second time she had been brought into that court (first with her mother) for this  

kind of crime; that her father was at that moment transported, and her younger sister  

was in confinement under the sentence of the Court for the very same kind of offence.  

She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

THE HONOURABLE ARTHUR WILLIAM HODGE  

One of the Members of his Majesty's Council in Tortola, an Island subject to  

Great Britain, in the West Indies, executed there on the 8th of May, 1811,  

for the Murder of his Negro Slave

WE believe that this is the first Englishman, at any rate since the late  

amelioration of their wretched condition, who suffered capital punishment for  

flogging his own slaves to death; but we are very sure that numbers as well French,  

Spaniards, Dutch, Portuguese, and above all, Americans have deserved the fate of  

Hodge, for barbarity to their fellow men, differing in nought but colour. 

The greater part of Englishmen, while drinking grog, or quaffing the fumes of  

best Virginia; or their wives and daughters in sipping their tea, know not by what base  

means, rum, sugar, and tobacco are imported into their country. The case before us  

affords an opportunity of throwing some light upon the dark subject of bringing to  

public view a long continued series of barbarity of burdens not fit for beasts to bear of  

whips and chains that overpower the frailer flesh, and bend the spirits down of  

deliberate, cruel, wanton, and unpunished murders. 

The brutal murder for which Mr Hodge suffered death, caused further  

investigations to be made in other West India islands; and which, at length, reached  

the government of the mother country. This produced a correspondence between the  

earl of Liverpool and governor Elliot, from which we shall select the first official  

document laid before a committee of the house of commons, exhibiting similar scenes  

of barbarity in another island. 

FROM THE ST. CHRISTOPHER GAZETTE OF 23rd FEB., 1810. 

Published by the Authority of the Assembly of the Island of Nevis 

NEVIS.-At a meeting of the gentlemen of the assembly at Charlestown, on  

Wednesday the 31st day of January, 1810; the following resolutions were entered  

into:-- 

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this house, that the conduct of Edward  

Huggins, sen. Esq. on Tuesday the 23rd of last month, in inflicting punishment on  

several of his negroes in the public market-place of this town, was both cruel and  

illegal; and that particularly in two cases, where two hundred and forty-two, and two  

hundred and ninety-one lashes were given, he was guilty of an act of barbarity  

altogether unprecedented in this island. That this House do hold such conduct in the  

utmost abhorrence and detestation, which sentiments perfectly accord with the  

feelings of the community in general. That this House do pledge themselves to  

promote the strictest investigation into this cruel proceeding, so disgraceful to  

humanity, so injurious to the fair character of the inhabitants, and so destructive of the  

best interests of the West India colonies. 

Resolved, That the above resolutions, with the evidence taken in support  

thereof, be printed. That copies be transmitted to England, and circulated through all  

the islands. 

The examination of John Burke, jun. deputy secretary of the said island, upon  

oath, saith, that on Tuesday, the 23rd Jan. 1810, he was standing in the street opposite  

the house of the Rev. William Green; when he saw Edward Huggins, sen. Esq. and his  

two sons, Edward and Peter Thomas Huggins, ride by, with a gang of negroes, to the  

public market-place; from whence the deponent heard the noise of the cart-whip; that  

deponent walked up the street, and saw Mr Huggins, sen. standing by, with two  

drivers flogging a negro-man, whose name deponent understood to be Yellow  

Quashy. That deponent went into Dr. Crosse's gallery, and sat down: that two drivers  

continued flogging the said negro-man for about fifteen minutes: that as he appeared  

to be severely whipped deponent was induced to count the lashes given the other  

negroes, being under an impression that the country would take up the business. That  

deponent heard Mr George Abbot declare, at Dr. Crosse's steps, near the market- 

place, that the first negro had received one hundred and sixty-five lashes: deponent  

saith, that Mr Huggins, sen. gave another negro-man one hundred and fifteen lashes;  

to another negro-man one hundred and sixty-five lashes; to another negro-man two  

hundred and twelve lashes; to another negro-man one hundred and eighty-one lashes;  

to a woman one hundred and ten lashes: to another woman fifty-eight lashes: to  

another woman ninety-seven lashes; to another woman two hundred and twelve  

lashes; and, that the woman who received two hundred and ninety-one lashes  

appeared young, and was most cruelly flogged. That all the negroes were flogged by  

two expert whippers: that Mr Edward Huggins, jun. and Mr Peter Huggins, were  

present at the time the negroes were punished: that Dr. Cassin was present, when  

some of the negroes were whipped, and when a man received two hundred and forty- 

two lashes. That deponent understood that Dr. Cassin was sent for by Mr Huggins,  

sen. That Edward Harris, Esq., Mr Peter Butler, and Dr. Crosse, were present at Dr.  

Crosse's house a part of the time during the punishment: and that Mr Joseph  

Nicholson, Mr Joseph Laurence, and Mr William Keepe, were present all the time.  

JOHN BURKE, Jun.  

Sworn before me, this 31st Jan., 1810, at the Secretary's office.---  

WM. LAURENCE 

A bill of indictment having been preferred against the said Mr Huggins, in  

consequence of one of the female slaves, he was acquitted, on which occasion Mr J.  

W. Tobin addressed an animated letter to the governor, asserting that the jury was  

packed; and, that their verdict excited the surprise and indignation of the respectable  

part of the community. 

In the letter of lord Liverpool to the governor, after adverting to the  

heinousness of the transaction, he says, 'I am commanded by his Royal Highness the  

Prince Regent to direct that you will remove from that honourable situation any  

magistrate or magistrates who actually witnessed the infliction of the punishment  

without interference; and, that he cannot receive from the council and assembly of the  

Virgin Islands a more flattering assurance of their regard to the wishes of their  

sovereign, and of the interest they feel in supporting the honour of the British name,  

than their anxious endeavours to ameliorate the condition of that class of beings,  

whose bitter and dependant lot entitles them to every protection and support.' 

Let us now bring forward the narration of an individual, on the sufferings of  

African slaves in the British West India Islands. 

The following are extracts from a work lately published by Dr. Pinckard,  

inspector-general of hospitals, and physician to the Bloomsbury dispensary, intituled,  

'Notes on the West Indies':-The facts took place at an English plantation in Demerara,  

where the doctor was stationed himself at the time. 

'Two unhappy negroes, a man and a woman, having been driven by cruel  

treatment to abscond from the plantation of Lancaster, were taken a few days since,  

and brought back to the estate, when the manager, whose inhuman severity had  

caused them to fly from his tyrannic government, dealt out to them his avenging  

despotism with more than savage brutality. Taking with him two of the strongest  

drivers, armed with the heaviest whips, he led these trembling and wretched Africans  

early in the morning, to a remote part of the estate, too distant for the officers to hear  

their cries; and there tying down first the man, be stood by, and made the drivers flog  

him with many hundred lashes, until on releasing him from the ground, it was  

discovered that he was nearly exhausted: and in this state the inhuman monster struck  

him with the butt end of a large whip and felled him to the earth; when the poor negro,  

escaping at once from his slavery and his sufferings, expired at the murderer's feet.  

But not satiated with blood, this savage tyrant next tied down the naked woman, on  

the spot by the dead body of her husband, and with the whips, already dyed with  

blood, compelled the drivers to inflict a punishment of several hundred lashes, which  

had nearly released her also from a life of toil and torture. 

'Hearing of these acts of cruelty, on my return from the hospital, and scarcely  

believing it possible that they could have been committed, I went immediately to the  

sick-house to satisfy myself by ocular testimony; when, alas! I discovered that all I  

had heard was too fatally true: for, shocking to relate, I found the wretched and almost  

murdered woman lying stark naked on her belly, upon the dirty boards, without any  

covering to the horrid wounds which had been cut by the whips, with the still warm  

and bloody corpse of the man extended at her side, upon the neck of which was an  

iron collar, and a long heavy chain, which the now murdered negro had been made to  

wear from the time of his return to the estate. 

'A few days after the funeral, the attorney of the estate happened to call at  

Lancaster, to visit the officers, and the conversation naturally turning upon the cruelty  

of the manager, and the consequent injury derived to the proprietors we asked him  

what punishment the laws of the colony had provided for such horrid and barbarous  

crimes; expressing our hope that the manager would suffer the disgrace he so justly  

merited! when to our great surprise the attorney smiled, and treated our remarks only  

as the dreams of men unpractised in the ways of slavery. He spake of the murder with  

as little feeling as the manager who had perpetrated it, and seemed to be amused at  

our visionary ideas of punishing a white man for his cruel treatment of slaves. 

'To the question, whether the manager would not be dismissed from the estate?  

be replied "Certainly not;" adding, "that if the negro had been treated as he deserved,  

he would have been flogged to death long before." Such was the amount of his  

sympathy and concern! "The laws of the country," he said, "were intended to punish  

any person for punishing a slave with more than 39 lashes for the same offence; but  

by incurring only a small fine he could at any time punish a negro with as many  

hundred lashes as he might wish, although the governor and the fiscal were standing  

at his elbow." 'Great wretchedness is occasioned at slave sales, by the separation of  

their friends and relatives. This dreadful and inherent feature of the traffic has not  

perhaps, been sufficiently attended to. The following description of a mother who was  

exhibited at a sale, with her son and three daughters, furnishes an instance: 'The fears  

of the parent, lest she should be separated from her children, or these from each other,  

were anxious and watchful, beyond all that imagination could paint, or the most vivid  

fancy portray. When anyone approached their little group, or advanced to look  

towards them with the attentive eye of a purchaser, the children in broken sobs,  

crouched nearer together, and the fearful mother in agonizing impulse, instantly fell  

down before the spectator, bowed herself to the earth, and kissed his feet; then  

alternately clinging to his legs, and pressing her children to her bosom, she fixed  

herself upon her knees, clasped her hands together, and in anguish cast up a look of  

humble petition, which might have found its way even to the heart of a Caligula; and  

thus, in Nature's truest language, did the afflicted parent urge the strongest appeal to  

his compassion, while she implored the purchaser, in dealing out to her the hard lot of  

slavery, to spare her the additional pang of being torn from her children.' 

Though Dr. Pinckard was always well received by the planters lived in their  

society on a footing of the closest intimacy was a witness of all the good as well as the  

evil of their manners and is, in every respect, most naturally and properly inclined to  

vindicate them, where truth will permit; yet his whole volumes, abounding in every  

species of information, containing all the results of his attentive, unwearied  

observations on the state of the slaves, as well as of the colonies in general, do not  

offer to the most attentive perusal one single fact or circumstance, approaching to a  

defence of the evil so often imputed to the slave trade. Their whole compass offers not  

a line to contradict, nor even in any degree to weaken the mass of evidence upon  

which former writers on colonial affairs have long denounced that detestable  

enormity. On the contrary, he furnishes, almost in every page, new examples of its  

evils, and new grounds for its abolition. 

But let us now turn to charges of an American writer upon his own  

countrymen; and see whether we cannot find, if possible, still greater cruelties  

inflicted upon their own slaves, in their own boasted land of liberty. 

Mr John Parrish, an American born citizen and an en lightened Quaker, in a  

pamphlet published in Philadelphia, 1806, by Kimber, Conrad, and Co. (who have  

correspondents in London) says:-- 

'There is a species of slave trade carried on in the United States, which in  

cruelty equals that in the West Indies. A class of men whose minds seem to have  

become almost callous to every tender feeling, having agents in various places suited  

to their purpose, who travel through different states, and by purchase or otherwise,  

procure considerable numbers of these people, which consequently occasions a  

separation of the nearest connexions in life. Husbands from wives and parents from  

children-the poignant sensations marked on their mournful countenances  

disregarded-are taken in droves through the country like herds of cattle, but with less  

commiseration; for, being chained or otherwise fettered, the weight and friction of  

their shackles naturally producing much soreness and pain, they are greatly  

incommoded in their travel. Jails, designed for the security of such as have forfeited  

their liberty by a breach of the laws, are, through the countenance of some of the  

magistracy, made receptacles for this kind of merchandize; and when opportunity  

presents for moving them further, it is generally in the dead of night, that their cries  

might not be heard, nor legal methods pursued, such as have been kidnapped. Others  

are chained in the garrets or cellars of private houses till the numbers becoming nearly  

equal to the success which may have been expected, they are then conveyed on board,  

and crowded under the hatches of vessels secretly stationed for that purpose, and thus  

transported to Petersburg in Virginia, or such other parts as will insure the best  

market, and many are marched by land to unknown destined places. 

'The evidence of a free African will not be taken against a white man; and,  

therefore, he may go unpunished. 

'Many of the people of colour, who had fled to prevent their being sold to  

southern traders, have, by authority of the fugitive law, been pursued, brought back,  

and sold to men of this description; and, as government has refused to afford them any  

redress, to God only could they look for support. 

'In some places, cognizance is taken of murder, long after the perpetration. In  

Great Britain, the governor of Goree, in Africa, for ordering a soldier to be illegally  

whipped, which occasioned his death, was tried and executed fifteen or twenty years  

afterwards. How have the coloured people's lives been sported with in some parts of  

the United States! Numbers have been whipped to death, and otherwise murdered, and  

little or no notice taken, in a judicial capacity. It was reported, from good authority,  

that a black man who was sold from near Snow-hill, in Maryland, to a distant part of  

the continent, returned back, and lay out of doors. Being accused of stealing from his  

neighbours, he was pursued, taken, and brought into the village one morning, and  

there hung without judge or jury; of which no more notice was taken than if they had  

hung a dog! 

'It was a just observation of Thomas Jefferson (late President of the United  

States), that the whole commerce between master and slave is one perpetual exercise  

of the most boisterous passions on the one part, and degrading submission on the  

other. 

'Many instances have occurred, and some of a recent date, where the slaves  

have rather chosen death, than to remain in a state of bondage liable to be separated  

from all that is dear to them. 

'When I was travelling through North Carolina, a black man who was  

outlawed, being shot by one of his pursuers, and left wounded in the woods, they  

came to the ordinary where I had stopped to bait my horse, in order to procure a cart  

to bring the poor wretched object in. Another, I was credibly informed, was shot, his  

head cut off and carried in a bag by the perpetrators of the murder, who received the  

reward, which was said to have been two hundred dollars, and that the head was stuck  

on a coal house at an iron works in Virginia. His crime was going, without leave, to  

visit his wife who was in slavery at some distance. One Crawford gives an account of  

a black man being gibbeted alive in South Carolina, and the buzzards came and  

picked out his eyes. Another was burnt at the stake in Charlestown, in the same state,  

surrounded by a multitude of spectators, some of whom were people of the first rank;  

the poor object was heard to cry, "Not guilty, not guilty." 

'From a recent account, published in the American Daily Advertiser, by a  

person who had taken a tour along the eastern shore of Maryland, it appears that from  

that side of the bay only, there were not less than six hundred blacks carded off in six  

months by the Georgia men, or southern traders. In the state of Maryland there is the  

greatest market, or inland trade, of the human species of any part of the United States.  

Some of the agents of those southern traders are so hardy as to publish advertisements  

of their readiness to purchase these kinds of cargo, which they effect in various ways;  

frequently by purchases made so secretly, that the poor blacks when engaged at their  

meals, or occupied in some domestic concerns, not having the least intimation of the  

design, are suddenly seized, bound, and carried off, either to some place provided for  

the purpose, or immediately on board the vessel. Many are obtained by kidnapping,  

until the whole supply is completed. 

'I have heard some men in eminent stations say, "The country must be thinned  

of these people (the blacks) they must be got rid of at any rate." Some from  

embarrassed circumstances have made sale of these wretched objects, who, being  

fallen upon unawares, were handcuffed and sent afar off, which has struck such a  

terror to other slaves, who would otherwise have remained with their masters that they  

have run away. A man and his wife on the same shore of Maryland, being thus  

circumstanced, fled under such alarm, that the woman left behind her sucking child.  

After they were taken, I met them, coupled together in irons, and drove along the road  

like brute beasts, by two rough unfeeling white men. When I was in Maryland, a  

minister of the gospel took some black children away from their parents, amid the  

screams of the mothers, never to meet again!' 

This wretched race of men, both in the West India islands, and United States  

of America, are bought and sold, exactly as we sell our horses, oxen, sheep, and  

swine. Planters, who are to a man gamblers, will stake a negro on the turn of a card, or  

the cast of the dice; or barter them for a horse, cattle, or a piece of land. They are put  

up in lots at auction, as we sell horses, and carried hundreds of miles, from the place  

where they were born. On the death of their master they are sold, along with the  

quadruped stock of the estate, to the best bidder, as the following advertisement, taken  

from a paper printed in the very town where general Washington was born, will fully  

prove. 

TO BE SOLD AT AUCTION, 

PURSUANT TO THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MANN PAGE,  

DECEASED 

All the Personal Properly belonging to his Estate: 

Consisting of about One Hundred and Sixty 

NEGROES, 

Together with all the stock of horses, three mules, cattle, sheep, plantation  

utensils, and about 1000 barrels of corn. Amongst the negroes are seven very valuable  

carpenters, three excellent blacksmiths, two millers, and some other tradesmen. The  

greater part, if not the whole, of this valuable property, will be sold on a credit of 12  

months; the purchaser giving bond with approved security, to bear interest from the  

date, if not punctually paid. All sums under 20 dollars must be paid money. 

All persons having claims against said estate, will please to make them known  

as speedily as possible; and those indebted will, it is hoped, be forward in making  

payment to  

ROBERT PATTON, Administrator with the will annexed. 

Fredericksburgh, Virginia, Dec. 1, 1806 

The sum of these doleful tales is the case of Hodge, who, for his wickedness to  

his slaves, expiated his crimes by the hands of the executioner; unpitied by the whites,  

and execrated by the blacks of Tortola. 

The Hon. A. W. Hodge, Esq., proprietor, and one of the members of his  

Majesty's council in this island, was indicted for the murder of one of his own  

negroes, of the name of Prosper. 

The prisoner on his trial, being put to the bar, pleaded 'Not guilty'. The first  

witness called to prove the charge was a free woman of colour, of the name of Pareen  

Georges. She stated that she was in the habit of attending at Mr Hodge's estate to  

wash linen; that one day Prosper came to her to borrow 6s., being the sum that his  

master required of him, because a mango had fallen from a tree, which (he) Prosper  

was set to watch. He told the witness that he must either find the 6s. or be flogged;  

that the witness had only 3s. which she gave him, but that it did not appease Mr  

Hodge: that Prosper was flogged for upwards of an hour, receiving more than 100  

lashes, and threatened by his master, that if he did not bring the remaining 3s. on the  

next day, the flogging should be repeated; that the next day he was tied to a tree, and  

flogged for such a length of time, with the thong of the whip doubled, that his head  

fell back, and that he could bawl no more. From thence he was carried to the sick- 

house, and chained to two other negroes: that he remained in this confinement during  

five days, at the end of which time his companions broke away, and thereby released  

him; that he was unable to abscond; that he went to the negro-houses and shut himself  

up; that he was found there dead, and in a state of putrefaction, some days afterwards;  

that crawlers were found in his wounds, and not a piece of black flesh was to be seen  

on the hinder part of his body where he had been flogged. Stephen M'Keogh, a white  

man, who had lived as manager on Mr Hodge's estate, deposed, that he saw the  

deceased, Prosper, after he had been so severely flogged; that he could put his finger  

in his side; he saw him some days before his death in a cruel state; he could not go  

near him for the blue flies. Mr Hodge had told the witness, while he was in his  

employ, that if the work of the estate was not done, he was satisfied if he heard the  

whip. 

This was the evidence against the prisoner. His counsel, in their attempt to  

impeach the veracity of the witnesses, called evidence as to his general character,  

which disclosed instances of still greater barbarity on the part of Mr Hodge. Among  

other examples, the witness, Pareen Georges, swore that he had occasioned the death  

of his cook, named Margaret, by pouring boiling water down her throat. 

Before the jury retired, the prisoner addressed them as follows:-'Gentlemen, as  

bad as I have been represented, or as bad as you may think me, I assure you, that I feel  

support in my affliction from entertaining a proper sense of religion. As all men are  

subject to wrong, I cannot but say that that principle is likewise inherent in me. I  

acknowledge myself guilty in regard to many of my slaves; but I call God to witness  

my innocence in respect to the murder of Prosper. I am sensible that the country  

thirsts for my blood, and I am ready to sacrifice it.' 

The jury, after deliberation, brought in a verdict of Guilty. There were six  

other indictments on similar charges against the prisoner. 

After, as well as previous to, his condemnation, and to the last moment of his  

life, Mr Hodge persisted in his innocence of the crime for which he was about to  

suffer. He acknowledged that he had been a cruel master (which, as he afterwards  

said, was all he meant in his admission to the jury, of his guilt in regard to others of  

his slaves); that he had repeatedly flogged his negroes; that they had then run away,  

when, by their own neglect, and the consequent exposure of their wounds, the death of  

some of them had possibly ensued. He denied all intentions of causing the death of  

anyone, and pleaded the unruly and insubordinate disposition of his whole gang as the  

motive for his severity. These were the sentiments in which he died. 

The execution of this ruffian will, we trust, be the commencement of a system  

of milder treatment towards those unfortunate beings, denominated slaves, in the West  

Indies. The atrocities committed by that fellow on his slaves, present a melancholy  

picture of the state of manners prevalent amongst the West Indian planters, and shew  

how inhuman that practice was which allowed persons of their description to exercise  

an uncontrolled power over their fellow-creatures.

THOMAS LEACH AND ELIZABETH, HIS WIFE  

The Former transported for uttering Forged Bank-Notes, and the Latter  

condemned to Death, July, 1811

AT the sessions, July, 1811, at the Old Bailey, Thomas Leach was put to the  

bar charged with feloniously uttering and publishing as true a certain false, forged and  

counterfeit bank-note for the payment of five pounds, well knowing the same to be  

forged and counterfeit, with intent to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank  

of England. On his being arraigned, he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge in the  

indictment-namely, that of having such counterfeit note in his possession-by which  

means he avoided the punishment of death, and was liable to be transported for the  

term of fourteen years. 

When he was removed from the bar, Elizabeth Leach, his wife, was next  

placed there. She stood charged with feloniously uttering and publishing as true a  

certain false, forged and counterfeit bank-note for the payment of one pound, well  

knowing the same to be forged, false and counterfeit, with the intent of defrauding the  

Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The prisoner did not follow her  

husband's example upon this occasion, but pleaded "Not Guilty," and her trial  

proceeded. 

Several witnesses were then examined, and first a shopkeeper in Clerkenwell,  

where she passed a false one-pound note. Other persons proved the like, and added  

that she was always alone, unaccompanied by any other person whatsoever. It was  

also proved that upon searching her apartments there were found in her pockets some  

genuine bank-notes of five-pound, two-pound and one-pound value, and in her work- 

basket a bundle of forged notes for the sums exactly corresponding with those that she  

had passed to the several persons who had appeared against her. In her defence she  

attempted to impress the Court and the jury to believe that her husband had always  

accompanied her; in this, however, she totally failed, and too late she found cause to  

lament that she had put in such a plea as she did, for the jury found her guilty. She  

was sentenced to death, which nothing could avert but an extension of Royal  

clemency.

JOHN STANLEY, THOMAS JEFFRY, W. BRAINE AND  

WILLIAM BRUNT  

London Boot Operatives who were imprisoned for conspiring to obtain  

Better Wages, August, 1811

ON the 17th of August, 1811, John Stanley, Thomas Jeffry, W. Braine and  

William Brunt, journeymen boot and shoe makers, were brought before the aldermen,  

Messrs Scholey and Magney, on an information charging them with forming a  

conspiracy, with thirty-six others, to obtain, contrary to the statute, an increase of  

wages from their master, Mr Hale, bootmaker, Fleet Street. 

Mr Alley, as counsel for the prosecution, stated that the defendants, under an  

improper and delusive sense of the law, had illegally held a meeting for the purpose of  

compelling Mr Hale to allow them the same prices for work that Mr Hoby and other  

masters at the west end of the town gave. Mr Hale had, from motives of humanity,  

selected a few persons for punishment rather than the whole of those who had left his  

employment, and a hope was entertained that his lenity would have had the effect of  

inducing them all to return to their work, in which case the prosecution would not be  

followed up; but if, on the contrary, they should persist in their refusal to work, justice  

would take place. 

Mr Hale, being examined, deposed that he was informed, while in the country  

that his men had struck for increase of prices, and that they had held a meeting for that  

purpose. In consequence of their conduct he attended their meeting, and he was  

informed, by two they had delegated, that the prices they required were contained in a  

book. The men contended they were entitled to the price given by Mr Hoby for boots,  

jockey-boots and shoes, which differed from that given by the prosecutor. He refused  

on pretence that he gave the same price that others did in the City. Finding them  

persist in their refusal to work for him, he requested a final answer by letter, as he was  

unwilling to resort to force precipitately. The meeting did not send him any notice,  

and he applied to a magistrate, in consequence of which the defendants were taken by  

warrants. 

The brother of the last witness confirmed the preceding statement. 

Mr Spankey, for the defendants, contended that they had not offended against  

the statute by merely entering into what he termed a shop association to obtain one of  

two rates of wages, payable and allowed in the trade. 

The magistrates, sitting in their double capacity as judges and jurors, found the  

defendants guilty, and sentenced them to two months' imprisonment in Newgate,  

where they were to be allowed, by special order, to work at shoemaking for the  

support of their wives and families. 

Watts and Bulger also appeared on the same charge; but the former, by  

pleading guilty, escaped prosecution; and the latter was acquitted, as it did not appear  

that he had attended the meeting of the other conspirators. The wives and children of  

the defendants were present. This decision was of great importance to journeymen, as  

it decided a question on which they had hitherto entertained very erroneous opinions.  

The defendants in this case had the power of appealing to the court or sessions, but  

they declined doing so previous to the decision of the aldermen. The magistrates had  

power, by the Penal Act, to commit the defendants for three months to the house of  

correction.

JANE COX  

Executed at Exeter Summer Assizes, 1811, for poisoning a Child with  

Arsenic

JANE COX was indicted at Exeter Assizes, on the 9th of August, 1811, for the  

wilful murder of one John Trenaman, an infant, sixteen months old, and Arthur  

Tucker was charged as an accessory. The latter was a respectable farmer, living at  

Hatherleigh, in this county, and the infant was his natural child. It appeared that Jane  

Cox had, an the 25th of June, 1811, administered to the child a quantity of arsenic, by  

putting it into the child's hands. The child put the arsenic in its mouth, in consequence  

of which it died in about two hours. The prisoner, in her written confession, had  

implicated Tucker, as having persuaded her to do the deed, and stated his having  

taken the arsenic from under the roof of a cottage, and given it to her, and promised  

her a one-pound note if she would adminster it to the child. This was not believed. 

The prisoner, Jane Cox, after a trial of seven hours, was convicted, and hanged  

on the following Monday. Tucker was acquitted. He called a number of respectable  

witnesses who gave him a very high character. 

On Monday, the 12th of August, 1811, pursuant to her sentence, this  

unfortunate woman was brought to the "new drop," the place of execution, and  

underwent the dread sentence of the law. 

She addressed the spectators at some length, and lamented that the person who  

had instigated her to the commission of the horrid deed was not also to suffer with  

her.

JAMES DALE  

A Chimney-Sweep, who descended Chimneys to break into Houses, and was  

convicted on 9th September, 1811

AT Union Hall, in the borough of Southwark, on the 9th of September, 1811,  

James Dale, a chimney-sweep, was charged on suspicion of committing divers  

felonies. It appeared that the houses of several of the inhabitants of the borough had  

recently been entered by some person contriving to get on the roof, and then  

descending the chimney. This depredator descended into the house of Mr Stewartson,  

a haberdasher, and found his way into the kitchen, which is on the first floor; here, as  

it would appear, though in the dark, the closet did not escape his notice, as a  

considerable quantity of bread and cheese had disappeared when the servant came  

down in the morning, A morocco thread-case, belonging to Mrs Stewartson, in which  

was a gown pattern cut out of thin paper-by the feel of which the thief was probably  

deceived into an opinion that he had got a prize of bank-notes-was also taken. From  

this house the villain went to Mr Freeman's, where he again descended. Here having  

discovered his error with respect to the thread-case, and also having found more  

valuable booty-namely, four silver tablespoons and a silver vegetable fork-he  

reascended the chimney with them, leaving the thread-case and also a clasp-knife  

behind him. 

The next house he visited was Mr Bishop's, a haberdasher, where he  

proceeded so far as to remove the chimneypot, preparatory to his descent, when it is  

supposed he was interrupted, as he retreated without effecting his object. On the same  

night he visited the World Turned Upside Down public-house, in the Kent Road,  

where, according to his usual practice, disdaining the common entrance, he descended  

the chimney; and, finding nothing better, contented himself with taking a bag  

containing about three pounds worth of light halfpence; and here, it is supposed, he  

terminated the labours of the night. On Goff, the officer, being applied to by Mr  

Freeman, his suspicion fell on the prisoner, Dale, who had been seen with a  

considerable quantity of bad halfpence in his possession; these suspicions were  

strengthened by the prisoner's initials, "J. D.," being marked on the knife left at Mr  

Freeman's, as well as by a hieroglyphical device upon it, expressive of his trade-viz. a  

house with the chimney on fire, and the chimney-sweep running towards it. At Mr  

Stewartson's the depredator had left an impression of his naked foot on the floorcloth,  

which agreed correctly with the shape and size of Dale's foot. 

This sooty rogue was committed to prison. 

[Note: A ludicrous circumstance had lately occurred at Bromhill, near  

Whalton. Some villains attempted to rob the barn of Mr John Pratt, of that place; but,  

while they were breaking in, two chimney-sweeps who were lodged there, for the  

purpose of starting off early in the morning with their work at the farmer's, were  

roused by the noise, and on one of them calling out, "I am coming," the depredators  

scampered off in great terror. At Highgate, about the same time, two ladies were  

dreadfully alarmed by the appearance of a black figure in their bedroom. The younger  

of them immediately jumped out of bed, ran downstairs and alarmed the family;  

when, to their astonishment, on returning to the room, it was found to be a chimney- 

sweep, who had descended from the wrong chimney, to the no small confusion of the  

ladies, who found themselves in complete deshabille before this son of soot.]

ARTHUR BAILEY  

Executed at Ilchester, 11th of September, 1811, for stealing a Letter from  

the Post Office at Bath

THIS unfortunate man, previous to his detection in the crime for which he  

suffered, lived in credit, and bore an unblemished character, supporting an amiable  

wife and several children by his industry. He had long been in the confidence of the  

postmaster of Bath, who entrusted him with sorting the letters, making up the mails,  

etc. 

Though robberies had been frequently practised upon the office, and letters  

missed, yet it was some time ere suspicion fell upon Bailey as the plunderer. At  

length, however, justice, slow yet sure, overtook him. He was convicted, at the  

Summer Assizes for Somersetshire, of stealing from the Bath Post Office a letter  

containing bills, the property of Messrs Slack, linen-drapers, and of forging an  

endorsement on one of the said bills. 

Shortly after his conviction, Mr Bridle, the keeper of the jail, gave him a list of  

several letters reported to have been lost from the Bath Post Office, and which it was  

supposed he must have had some knowledge of. On this he wrote: "I have clearly  

examined this list, and there is only one I really know of, and that I have received the  

benefit of-must beg to be excused from saying which.-A. B." On another part of it he  

added: "It has been said I have had concerns with others in the Post Office; now I do  

positively declare to God that I had no concerns with anyone.-A. B." Bailey had some  

hopes of a reprieve till Monday, when his solicitor informed him that all applications  

to the Secretary of State, the Postmaster-General, and the judge who tried him, were  

in vain. As the prisoner could be brought to acknowledge only the crime for which he  

had been convicted, the under-sheriff, in consequence of several letters he had  

received to that effect, thought he might be brought to make a further confession;  

consequently, on Tuesday morning, after he had taken an affectionate and distressing  

leave of his wife and six children, and received the Sacrament, and had been left to  

himself and his own reflections some hours, Mr Melliar, with much humanity, again  

urged him on the matter, mentioning particular letters that had been lost; to which  

Bailey firmly replied: "I must request, sir, you will not press me further on this  

subject. I have made a solemn engagement with Almighty God that I will not disclose  

more than I have done, which I think would be a heinous and additional sin to break;  

if I had not made this engagement I would readily, sir, answer all your questions, and  

remove all difficulties." Afterwards he observed: "I am about to suffer for what has  

been truly proved against me. All the rest must die with me." 

He was taken out of prison a little after eight o'clock in the morning, and  

placed in a cart, attended by Mr Melliar, the under-sheriff, and the chaplain of the  

prison, in a chaise. He showed the greatest firmness on the way to the fatal tree, and  

when under the gallows he joined fervently in prayer, and addressed the spectators  

audibly: "I hope you will all take warning"; then, holding a Prayer Book in his hand: "  

I beg you to look often into this book, and you will not come to shame. Be sure to be  

honest, and not covet money, cursed money!-and particularly money that is not your  

own." He was then deprived of his mortal state of existence, dying without a struggle.

WILLIAM BEAVAN  

A Burglar, who was identified by his Deformed Hand, and was executed  

before Newgate, 19th of September, 1811

AT the sessions at the Old Bailey, September, 1811, William Beavan was put  

to the bar, being indicted for breaking into and entering the dwelling-house of Mrs  

Mary Stratford, in Kensington, on the morning of Saturday, the 24th of August, 1811,  

and stealing thereout a considerable quantity of plate and other articles. 

John Stratford deposed that he saw Mrs Stratford fasten all her doors and her  

windows the evening before the robbery was committed. Mrs Stratford was a market- 

gardener, and being in the habit of attending Covent Garden Market at a very early  

hour each market-day, she went out about half-past twelve o'clock on the night  

mentioned in the indictment, about her business to Covent Garden Market, and  

secured her doors as she was accustomed to do. In the morning, about five o'clock,  

when witness came to Mrs Stratford's house, he found the window had been broken  

and forced open, and that robbers had plundered the house. 

Charles Stratford, a boy about fourteen years old, nephew to the above- 

mentioned witness, stated that he was awake about one o'clock (for he heard the clock  

strike that hour); and, listening, also heard a noise in the front room; that he called out,  

but receiving no answer he concluded that his grandmother (Mrs Stratford) was in the  

front room, and fell asleep again; but in a quarter of an hour he was roused by a noise  

resembling the breaking open of drawers, upon which he got out of bed and went into  

the front room, where he saw two men, one with a mask over his face, a pistol in one  

hand, and a lighted candle and an iron crow in the other. The other man had a black  

ribbon tied across his mouth. When he went into the room the man who had the mask  

on his face struck the witness twice on the side of his head, and in a coarse voice  

desired him to go back again into his bed, which witness immediately did, followed  

by the man who had struck him. He went into bed, and then the man who followed  

him into the room took a sheet of paper and covered the witness's face with it, and at  

last made him lie entirely under the clothes. Whilst he was in this situation the other  

man came into the room and threatened him that he would shoot him if he did not tell  

where his grandmother kept her money; but he could not. The two men then left him,  

and sat down in the adjoining room, where they stayed upwards of one hour and three  

quarters, amusing themselves with beer and greengage plums, all the time, and at last  

departed by the same window through which they had forced their way into the house.  

When they went off, and the witness could safely do it, he gave the alarm, but the  

thieves had escaped with their booty, having carried off plate, watches, money and  

other property to a considerable amount. 

On his cross-examination he said that the reason why he knew the prisoner at  

the bar to have been one of the men who broke into his grandmother's house was  

because the man who struck him had no fingers on the hand that gave him the blow,  

and that he struck him with his right hand. He was positive of that; the more so as,  

when he was holding the paper on his face, and removing it again to make him lie  

under the bedclothes, he had a full opportunity of observing the deformed hand with  

much more distinctness. He further identified him from the coarseness of his voice. 

The prisoner was here directed to hold up his hands, and the right was just in  

the state described by the boy, for it appears he was born deformed, the fingers all  

adhering, and not above an inch long, but with the nails on. 

The jury, after remaining shut up a very considerable time, at last came into  

court, and returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to death. He  

was executed before Newgate, on the 19th of September, 1811.

DANIEL DAVIS  

A Postal Letter-Carrier, convicted at the September Sessions, 1811, at the  

Old Bailey, and sentenced to Death, for stealing a Letter containing Ten  

Pounds

DANIEL DAVIS was capitally indicted for having secreted a letter entrusted  

to him as one of the letter-carriers of the General Post Office, and appropriated to his  

own purposes a ten-pound Bank of England note contained therein. 

It appeared in evidence that the letter which the prisoner was charged with  

having secreted had been with the usual regularity put into the post office, upon the  

29th of May, 1811, at Liverpool, by a person named William Scolfield, directed to his  

father at the house of Mr Raynes, 25 King Street, Covent Garden. A letter of advice  

had been previously sent, and received by Mr Scolfield, senior, stating the number  

and particulars of the note which it was his son's intention to transmit to him. The  

letter, however, with the promised enclosure, not having arrived upon the 31st of  

May, Mr Scolfield, junior, went to the bank and stopped payment of the note. Until  

the 31st of July no information was received by which the circumstance could be  

elucidated; but upon that day it was paid away in the Bank of England by Messrs  

Robarts & Co. Mr Parken, solicitor for the Post Office, to whom previous intimation  

of the robbery had been given, then ascertained that Robarts & Co. had received it  

from Meux & Co., to whom it had been given by a publican named William Rose,  

who kept the Crown and Two Chairmen, Dean Street, Soho. 

In the evidence of Mr Rose it appeared that he had received the note from the  

prisoner, whose name he put on it, and who was letter-carrier to the district in which  

he resided. 

The usual proofs of the routine business at the Post Office having been  

adduced, as well as the proof of the mode by which the prisoner had obtained  

possession of the letter, Mr Justice Heath summed up the evidence, and the jury found  

the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced to death.

ELIZABETH KING  

Sentenced to Death at the Old Bailey, for privately stealing a Bag of Gold,  

21st of September, 1811

ON the 21st of September, 1811, Elizabeth King, along with Elizabeth Blott  

and Philadelphia Walton, were put to the bar, charged with a robbery in a dwelling- 

house. 

Mr Barry, for the prosecution, stated the following case to the jury. The  

prosecutor, Mr William Coombe, a publican, lived at the King's Head public-house,  

Earl Street, Blackfriars. On Saturday, the 8th of June, about eight o'clock in the  

evening, the three prisoners came to his house, and going into a back parlour ordered  

some ale, which they drank. Then one of them, Elizabeth Blott, begged to sit in the  

bar, as she waited to see Mr Lloyd, whom she expected. Mr Coombe accordingly  

permitted her, and the three prisoners went into the bar together. In a short time Blott  

and Walton went to look for Mr Lloyd, leaving the prisoner King in the bar, from  

which Mr Coombe was frequently called, so that she was several times alone there.  

When the other two, with Mr Lloyd, returned, they all sat down a short time together,  

and then all departed. 

At twelve o'clock at night, when Mr Coombe was going to bed, he discovered  

that a canvas bag, containing a silk bag and thirty-six guineas in gold, which was in  

his coat pocket that hung across the back of a chair in his bar, had been carried off.  

Dickons, an officer of Bow Street, received information of the robbery, and through  

the exertions of Mr Reading, a publican, in the neighbourhood of Gray's Inn Lane,  

and Elizabeth Blott, one of the prisoners, the prisoner Elizabeth King was  

apprehended, when she immediately confessed that she only had committed the  

robbery. She stated that she had exchanged the guineas for bank-notes, that she spent  

six of them, and that she had deposited the notes, etc., in the hands of Mr Slyford, a  

publican in Brooke's Market. 

The counsel for the prosecution stated that the bank-notes and three guineas,  

as mentioned, were delivered up by Mr Slyford; and he added that, in justice and  

humanity, the prisoners Walton and Blott should not have been included in the  

indictment, and if he had been consulted before the bill had been preferred he would  

not have permitted them to have been put upon their trial. 

The facts, as stated, were proved, and Elizabeth King was found guilty and  

sentenced to death.

AGNES ADAMS  

Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, 1811, and sentenced to Six Months'  

Imprisonment for uttering a "Bank of Fleet" Note

BETWEEN 1808 and 1811 numberless impositions were practised upon the  

unwary in the metropolis in passing notes manufactured in imitation of the notes of  

the Bank of England. These were traced to have first originated in the Fleet Prison, a  

receptacle for debtors only. These notes were printed on paper similar to that used by  

the Bank of England; but upon the slightest inspection they were easily detected;  

which creates surprise at so many having been imposed upon. The great success of  

sharpers passing them chiefly arose from the hurry of business of those imposed upon,  

and from the novelty of the fraud. The shopkeeper would see the word one, two, three,  

etc., an exact imitation, but did not examine further, or he would have found that  

instead of "Pounds" the counterfeit expressed "Pence"; and this, with all the wisdom  

of our laws, was found not to be forgery. Instead of "Governor and Company of the  

Bank of England" the worthless paper substituted "Governor and Company of the  

Bank of Fleet." Such a gross deception we may be sure could not long be practised,  

and every tradesman, who had dearly been taught precaution, on taking a bank-note,  

convinced himself that it was not a "Fleet." 

The circulation of "Fleet Notes" was generally entrusted to profligate women,  

who cohabited with the men who made them. This mode was less suspicious, and in a  

single year had been carried on to a considerable amount. 

Of this description-and we could adduce many such-was Agnes Adams; who,  

in passing one of such notes denominating twopence as a two-pound Bank of England  

note to Mr Spratz, a publican of St John Street, Clerkenwell, was by him detected,  

seized, prosecuted and convicted. The punishment could only be extended to six  

months' hard labour in the house of correction. 

The fraternity of thieves about London have fabricated or cant names for the  

different articles which they steal. The "Fleet Notes" they called "Flash Screens."

RICHARD PAYNE AND JOHN MALONEY  

Convicted, October Sessions, 1811, at the Old Bailey, and sentenced to  

Death, for robbing a Man whom they had accused of being an Ex-Convict

RICHARD PAYNE and John Maloney were put to the bar and indicted for  

making an assault, upon the king's highway, on William Ducketts, putting him in fear,  

and taking from his person, and against his will, a pocket-book, value sixpence, one  

Bank of England note, value ten pounds, one other Bank of England note, value five  

pounds, and three one-pound notes, his property. 

William Ducketts deposed that he was a venetian-blind maker, and that on the  

night of the day mentioned in the indictment he went into a liquor shop in St Giles's  

and asked for some beer; but they did not sell any, and he could not be served with  

that article; so he called for some rum-and-water. Whilst drinking it he observed an  

old man in the shop, and he invited him to a glass of gin, and paid for it, and then took  

the old man with him across the way to a public-house, where the two prisoners, who  

saw him in the liquor shop, followed him. They all conversed together, and he treated  

them all. He had no sooner done this than he perceived the prisoner Payne whisper  

something to another man in the room (Salmon, the Bow Street officer), and  

immediately Salmon took him (the prosecutor) into custody and searched him, saying  

that he had an information against him. He answered that he was not afraid of any  

matter or person, but the officer proceeded to search him, and upon taking his pocket- 

book from his pocket examined it, and found its contents to consist of the property  

above mentioned, whereupon Salmon said he was misinformed, and advised him  

immediately to go home. All this time the two prisoners were present, and saw the  

notes taken out of and again restored to the pocket-book, which he placed again in his  

inside coat-pocket, and having paid his reckoning departed. He had not, however,  

proceeded many paces from the last public-house when two men rushed upon him;  

one of them pulled his hat over his eyes, and the other pulled back his hands, and one  

or the other of them said, "Come, you b--y-, your pocket-book," and they snatched it  

violently from his pocket, and made off. 

Salmon corroborated all that part of the testimony of the prosecutor that  

related to the occurrences which took place during the whole of the time he was in the  

room of the last public-house, and he assigned as a reason for searching the prosecutor  

in the manner he did that one of the prisoners (Payne) had privately informed him that  

he, the prosecutor, was a returned convict. 

Another witness, the publican, proved that both the prisoners came to his  

house the day after the robbery and tendered a ten-pound Bank of England note to be  

changed, which turned out to be the very identical note that was in Ducketts's pocket- 

book when he was robbed. 

The evidence of the prosecution being gone through, the judge, Sir Simon Le  

Blanc, summed up the evidence with his accustomed accuracy and precision, making  

suitable comments on the whole, and the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, and  

sentence of death was passed.

WILLIAM ROGERS  

Overseer of Carpenters, employed at the Lyceum Theatre, transported,  

October Sessions, 1811, for embezzling Timber, and making False Charges  

to his Employer

MR ARNOLD, one of the proprietors of the Lyceum Theatre, having been  

informed that the foreman of the carpenters employed at the theatre was in the habit of  

purloining wood, canvas, etc., and having the same made into articles of furniture for  

his own use by several of the men belonging to the theatre, an inquiry took place,  

when it appeared that the foreman, a man named William Rogers, had long been in  

the practice of employing men to make him articles of household furniture, and  

packing-cases to convey scenes to the West Indies for the Barbados Company, out of  

the stock belonging to the proprietors. It was also discovered that he had made  

charges, as overseer, of more money paid to carpenters under his orders than they had  

received or were entitled to. For these frauds he was indicted at the Westminster  

Sessions in October, 1811, being charged with having defrauded, by means of false  

pretences, Messrs Thomas Sheridan and William Arnold, the proprietors of the  

Lyceum Theatre, of the sum of nine shillings, by falsely pretending that in his  

capacity of overseer of the carpenters he had paid so much money to a man of the  

name of William Crawford, for night work done at such theatre, whereas he did not  

pay him such sum of nine shillings. 

Mr Gurney stated to the Court and the jury that the defendant had been  

employed in the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and after in the Lyceum-altogether  

upwards of twenty years; that on Saturday the 12th inst. he came to the treasurer, Mr  

Peake, and, as was his custom, tendered him a list of workmen, and the work which  

they had done during the week, in which list was the name of William Crawford, to  

which was affixed the sum of one pound, fifteen shillings-namely, twenty-six  

shillings for day and nine shillings for night work, as done by him during that week- 

and the money was accordingly given to him, that he should pay it over to Crawford.  

It was, however, soon discovered that Crawford had not done the night work, as  

charged by the defendant, and, upon investigation, other circumstances occurred  

which led Mr Peake and the proprietors to entertain the worst opinion of the  

defendant. He was ultimately apprehended, and this prosecution instituted. 

Mr Arnold proved the proprietorship of the theatre to be invested in Mr  

Thomas Sheridan and himself, and he proved other collateral matter relative to the  

subject more immediately in question. 

Mr Peake proved that the defendant had tendered to him the list of workmen  

above mentioned, wherein was charged thirty-five shillings for W. Crawford, nine  

shillings of which was for night work. 

W. Crawford was the last called, and he proved that all the defendant had paid  

him for that week's work was twentysix shillings, and he further proved, to the  

satisfaction of the Court, that in that week so charged he had not done any night work  

whatsoever. 

Here ended the case in support of the prosecution. 

The jury brought in a verdict of guilty. 

The defendant was tried upon a second indictment, accusing him with a like  

fraud in charging for a young man, of the name of Franklin, the sum of forty shillings,  

whereas he had paid him no more than twenty-five shillings, thereby defrauding the  

proprietors of fifteen shillings. On this he was also found guilty. 

There was a third indictment against him, but Mr Gurney declined proceeding  

upon it. He then signified that the defendant had been guilty of like practices two  

years ago; but, in consideration of his family, and his apparent repentance, he was  

then forgiven. He was sentenced to be transported for seven years.

TUCKER, THE MOCK PARSON  

Convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, 2nd of November, 1811, for swindling  

a Victualler of his Wine, and transported for Seven Years

AN unusual crowd of very respectable persons assembled at an early hour at  

the Middlesex Sessions in November, 1811, to see this clerical impostor, and to hear  

his trial. He was put to the bar charged with obtaining goods and money under false  

pretences-viz. by pretending to a person of the name of William Edbrook that he was  

a clergyman in Holy Orders, and Rector of Frome, in Somersetshire; and, by means of  

these false pretences, obtaining from the said W. Edbrook three bottles of wine and  

one bank dollar of the value of five shillings and sixpence. 

Mr Edbrook deposed that he kept the Quebec Arms, in Oxford Street. On the  

1st of July, 1811, the prisoner came to his house and entered into conversation with  

him. It was rather late in the evening. He asked him his name; and on hearing it was  

Edbrook observed that he was sure he was a West Countryman, as he knew many of  

that name in the West of England; adding, at the same time, he was a West  

Countryman himself, and that his uncle was Recorder of Exeter, his name Tucker, and  

he himself was Rector of Frome, in Somersetshire, and that he was also curate of Park  

Street Chapel; also that he was intimately acquainted with Sir T. D. Ackland, Bart.,  

and many personages of the first distinction; and that he lodged at No. 42 Green  

Street, Park Lane. He then inquired if his wine was such as he could recommend, and  

upon being answered in the affirmative ordered some wine to be sent the next day to  

him, as his father, sister and some friends were to dine with him. This being promised,  

he departed that night, and paid his reckoning. 

The next day Mr Edbrook sent to know whether the prisoner did actually  

reside at 42 Green Street, and whether he performed service in Park Street Chapel;  

and his servant brought back intelligence that it was all true. He then sent two bottles  

of sherry. The next day prisoner called on him, and drank a bottle of port, but went  

away without paying for it, saying, however, that he would call the following day.  

The following day he did call; and, talking high as before, asked if he could have a  

bed there that night. Mr Edbrook had no accommodation for him, as his house was all  

engaged, but he procured a bed for him in a neighbouring coffeehouse, and he called  

in the morning after, and breakfasted at Mr Edbrook's. When breakfast was over he  

signified that he had no money about him less than a two-pound note, upon which he  

put on his hat and departed, and witness saw no more of him till his apprehension at  

Bow Street. 

Benjamin Tedder said he was clerk to Park Lane Chapel. On the 22nd June  

last the defendant came to him and said he was appointed by the Rev. Mr Clark to  

assist him in the clerical functions at the chapel, and he accordingly attended the next  

day. He came in a gown, and was accommodated with a surplice by the witness. He  

went through the communion service and, after the sermon, administered the  

Sacrament to a considerable congregation. He also performed the evening service of  

that day. 

The witness understood that the Rev. Mr Clark had actually engaged the  

defendant, being imposed upon by him. In conversation with him the defendant said  

he had a great number of invitations for each Sunday, and consulted with him which  

he should prefer, when the witness very honestly advised him to go where he should  

get the best wine and the best company. 

The prisoner was found guilty on the second indictment, and the Court, having  

considered the various circumstances of his life, sentenced him to be transported for  

seven years.

HARRIET MAGNIS  

Tried for child stealing, 1811

THIS was a very singular and mysterious affair. It greatly excited public  

curiosity; and though every means was taken, even to the proclamation of the lord  

mayor of London, offering a reward for the recovery of the lost infant, and describing  

the person and dress of the woman suspected of the crime, the offender with the stolen  

boy long remained undiscovered. The woman was described to have been genteelly  

dressed, and that she had purchased some pastry to treat the child, and a hat and  

feather for it, at a hatter's shop, on Fish-street-hill. 

Suspicion fell upon an innocent lady, the wife of a surgeon in the navy, and,  

sad to relate, she was brought before his lordship, who, after two examinations of  

several witnesses, all of whom, it will be found, mistook her person, committed her  

for trial at the Old Bailey. It is true she was acquitted, but what alleviation could be  

offered to her feelings what reparation made to an injured husband and distressed  

relatives? 

The trial of this lady, whose name it would be indecorous to mention,  

discovered the whole proceedings of this very singular offence; just as practised by  

the guilty woman, who we shall soon introduce to the reader; and which were to the  

following effect. 

Mary Cox, who keeps a green-grocer's and fruiterer's shop, in Martin's-lane,  

Cannon-street, deposed, that about half past ten o'clock on the morning of Monday the  

18th of November 1811, Mrs Dellow, the mother of the lost child, came to her shop,  

told her she was going to consult a medical gentleman on some complaint in her eyes,  

and left the little boy and another child, his sister, in her care, until her return. The  

witness was sitting shortly afterwards with one of the children on her knee, when a  

lady answering to the prisoner's description came in, and called for two penny-worth  

of apples. She put down the child, and served her. Immediately afterwards some other  

person came in for some of her merchandize, whom she also served. She then,  

missing the children from the door, called them to come in, but neither answered. She  

ran into the street, but could not find them. Alarmed at this, she went up the street, and  

called frequently, Rebecca (the little girl's name), but received no answer. After a  

short time, she saw the little girl, without her brother, returning down Fish-street  

having an apple and a small plum cake in her hand. She asked her who had given her  

them, and where her mother was? The child replied, she bad got them from the lady  

who, just before, had bought the apples at her shop, and had taken her little brother  

with her to his mother. The woman made every enquiry about the neighbourhood, but  

could find no satisfactory traces of the lady. Witness could not, however, positively  

swear to the identity of the prisoner. 

Two witnesses from a pastry-cook's shop, on Fish-street hill, the one a shop- 

woman, and the other the daughter of the master, proved, that on the morning, and  

about the hour stated, a lady, attired in a dark gown, blue cloth cloak, and black straw  

bonnet and feather, came into the shop with two children; one, the little girl now  

produced in court, and the other a little boy, about four years old. They had neither  

hats not tippets on, and the boy had his hair turned up on one side of his forehead,  

answering to the description of the lost child. The lady bought some buns, of which  

she gave two to each of the children, and immediately went out with them. Both these  

witnesses looked at the lady, and felt every reason to be convinced she was the same  

person, although she was now dressed quite differently. being attired in a scarlet cloth  

cloak, and figured silk coiffure. The uncle of the child stated, that having heard his  

brother's little son had been stolen, he made every enquiry into the circumstances, and  

round the neighbourhood, in order, if possible, to discover some clue to the person  

who had taken off the child. He learned what had occurred at the pastry-cook's: and  

afterwards was informed at the shop of Mr Shergold, a hatter, on Fish-street-hill, that  

a lady answering the same description had purchased the same morning a hat and  

feather for a little boy, whose appearance agreed with the person of little Dellow; but  

all farther enquiries were in vain, until some days afterwards, when a gentleman of his  

acquaintance, to whom he related the story, told him of a woman who lived at a house  

in Trafalgar-place, Southwark, whose person corresponded with the description he  

gave. Thither he went, accompanied by a police officer from Union-hall, and one of  

the young women from the pastry-cooks. Unwilling to excite any alarm, be first  

rapped at the door, and enquired if Mrs R--- was at home; and was told she was not by  

the person who opened the door. He said he would wait for her, and he was shewn  

upstairs to the front apartment of two which the lady occupied. After waiting a few  

minutes she came in. He engaged her by some conversation, still casting his eye about  

for some traces of the child, but saw none. He asked if she had not another apartment,  

to which she answered, 'Yes,' and shewed him into the next room. He discovered no  

clue there to his object. She then asked him who the persons were who waited below  

stairs? He said they came with him; and, requesting her not to be alarmed, told her the  

nature of his business, and asked her if she had any objection to see and speak to the  

girl from the pastry-cook's shop? She answered she had no objection to see any person  

upon the subject. The girl was then called upstairs, and on seeing and hearing the  

defendant speak, said she was the very person. The witness cautioned her at the time  

to be very circumspect, but she was positive as to the defendant's identity. The witness  

again requested the lady not to be alarmed; but told her it would be necessary for her  

to accompany him with the officer to the hatter's shop before-mentioned. She came  

without hesitation; but at the hatter's, the female who had sold the hat and feather,  

could not speak positively to her person, but merely to her size; and she herself  

positively denied having ever been either at the hatter's or the pastry-cook's. She was,  

however, held in custody, and her apartments were afterwards searched, but no such  

cloak or hat as those described to have been worn by her on the former day, nor as  

that said to be purchased for the child, were discovered, nor anything that could give  

any information respecting her. 

The lady positively denied any knowledge of the transaction, and added, that  

she was confined within her lodgings by illness the whole of the day, and the two days  

preceding this transaction, except going out on the Monday afternoon about four  

o'clock; and this, she said, could be proved by two witnesses; the owner of the house  

where she lodged, and another female, who is also an inmate. 

Several witnesses were then examined to the prisoner's character, who all bore  

testimony to her general good conduct. 

The recorder, in summing up the evidence, observed, that there was nothing to  

fix the prisoner with guilt but her identity; he then instanced a case in which six  

witnesses had sworn to the person of a gentleman as having committed a robbery at  

Hampstead, who afterwards proved, to demonstration, that he was in London at the  

time at which it was said he had been guilty of the offence imputed to him. Having  

then adverted to the alibi, proved on the part of the prisoner, he exhorted the jury to  

divest their minds of all prejudice, and form their judgment wholly upon the facts  

before them. If they had any doubt as to her guilt, her good character ought to be  

thrown into the scale of mercy-if, on the contrary, they were fully convinced of her  

criminality, they would return a verdict accordingly. 

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of-Acquittal. 

Several females were carried out of the court in a state of insensibility during  

the trial, from the crowded state of every part of it. The trial lasted from 5 until nearly  

10 o'clock. 

At length this mystery began to develop. The first information received in  

London, was from a magistrate in Gosport, acquainting Mr and Mrs Dellow of the  

discovery that their child was safe there, and ready to be delivered to its parents. The  

father instantly set off, and was once more blessed by enfolding his infant in his arms. 

Soon after Mr Dellow's return home with his son, he was required to appear  

with him, before the lord mayor of London, where he found William Barber, the  

keeper of the Gosport bridewell prison, ready to give evidence against a woman of  

that town of the name of HARRIET MAGNIS in whose possession the child was  

found. 

This man informed his lordship that having seen a hand-bill describing a child  

lost or stolen from London, he got information that this child was at Gosport, that he  

communicated the same to the magistrate, who granted him a warrant to bring the  

woman and child before him for examination, that he went to the lodgings of Mrs  

Magnis, who lived in a very respectable way, that he asked her if she had a child; she  

said she had; he then asked her if it was her own, to which she replied rather faintly,  

that it was; but upon his saying that he doubted it was not her child, and desired to see  

the child, she took him very readily to the room where the child was in bed, and  

confessed to him that the child was not her own, and that she had found the boy in  

London, and said she had taken the greatest care of him, and had bought him a great  

many clothes, which she produced; being taken before the magistrate she confessed  

everything. The keeper handed a copy of her confession and examination at Gosport,  

to his lordship. Mrs Dellow was present with the little boy: she gave an account to his  

lordship that her husband had brought her child home alive and well, though not quite  

so lusty. The lord mayor said he must remand the prisoner for further examination;  

but wished to know in the mean time if she had anything to say for herself; she said  

she was willing to do anything, and confessed she had taken the child from a little  

girl, and said it was to please her husband, and was very sorry for it, and seemed very  

much affected. She was very genteelly dressed, and much resembled the woman who  

was tried for this offence, as she had on a dark green mantle trimmed with fur, and a  

straw bonnet. 

On her second examination, it appeared, that a woman at Gosport observed a  

neighbour of hers in possession of a boy, bearing the marks described, and answering  

to the age of three years old. She immediately thought it was Thomas Dellow, who  

had been so long missing; the more so, as she had reason to believe that the pretended  

mother had never borne a child. She communicated her suspicions to the gaoler, and  

he to the nearest magistrate, who sent for Mrs Magnis, the pretended mother. The  

moment she was interrogated on the subject, she confessed the whole affair, and her  

motive for the robbery; that Magnis her husband, who was a gunner on board one of  

his majesty's ships, and had saved a considerable sum of money for a man in his  

station of life, was extremely partial to children, and had often expressed his most  

anxious wish to have a little darling, as he used to term it. His wife, not less anxious to  

gratify him in this respect, wrote to him while at sea, that she was in the family way.  

The gunner, highly delighted that he had obtained his desired object, sent home the  

earnings of many a cruise, amounting to 300L. with a particular charge that the infant  

should be well rigged, and want for nothing: if a boy, so much the better. 

The next letter from his hopeful wife announced the happy tidings that his  

first-born was a son: and that she would name him Richard, after his father.-The  

husband expressed his joy at the news, and counted the tedious hours until he should  

be permitted to come home to his wife and child. 

At home he at length arrived, but at an unfortunate time, when the dear  

Richard was out at nurse, at a considerable distance; change of air being necessary to  

the easy cutting of his teeth. The husband's time being short, he left his home with a  

heavy heart, without being able to see his offspring; but he was assured that on his  

next trip to Gosport be should have the felicity he had so often pined for, of clasping  

his darling to his bosom. It was not until November last that he was at liberty to revisit  

home, when he had again the mortification to find that his son, whom he expected to  

see a fine boy of three years old, had not yet cut his teeth, or that he was from home  

on some other pretence. The husband, however, was not to be pacified thus: he would  

go and see his son, or his son should come to him. Mrs Magnis, finding him  

determined, thought the latter much the best way; and accordingly set off to fetch the  

boy. The metropolis occurred to her as the market best calculated to afford her a  

choice of children; and passing down Martin's-lane, she was struck with the rosy little  

boy, Thomas Dellow, and at once determined to make him her prize. He was playing  

with his sister at the greengrocer's shop-door, into which Mrs Magnis went, with the  

double view of purchasing some apples, and carrying off the boy.-She made much of  

the sister, caressed the boy, and gave him an apple. The children being pleased with  

her attention, she asked the little girl to shew her to a pastry-cook's shop to buy some  

cakes, whither she took both the girl and the boy. She got clear off with the latter, and  

left the girl behind. Magnis, supposing all his wishes realized, was made truly happy. 

It is no exaggeration to say, that poor Magnis felt a parental affection for the  

boy; and that when the imposition was discovered before the magistrate, he was  

grieved to the heart at being obliged to part with him even under all the circumstances  

of the transaction. 

Harriet Magnis was committed to Winchester gaol; and was brought to trial  

for the offence at the Assizes for Hampshire; and, after many arguments urged by  

counsel on both sides, it was agreed the offence was committed in London, and not in  

Hampshire, consequently she was --acquitted!!!

JOHN WILLIAMS  

Who, after committing a series of horrible murders, in 1811 escaped the  

gallows by hanging himself in Prison

The Body of Williams taken for Burial at the Cross-roads

THE metropolis-indeed the whole nation-was never so completely horror- 

struck at any private calamity as at the daring and inhuman murders perpetrated, in the  

very heart of the City of London, at the close of the year 1811. 

On a dark evening in the beginning of the month of December, about the time  

when tradesmen were shutting up their shops, Mr Marr, a respectable draper, sent his  

servant-maid to purchase some oysters for the family supper. Mr Marr was in the act  

of replacing goods which had been exposed to the view of customers on the counter  

upon their shelves. The girl left the shop door ajar, expecting to return in a very few  

minutes; but, unfortunately, the nearest place of sale for oysters had disposed of the  

whole, and she therefore went farther on her errand. Meantime two or more ruffians  

entered the shop, shut the door, knocked down Mr Marr, and cut his throat. Next they  

seized his shop-boy, and murdered him. Mrs Marr was in the kitchen, hushing her  

babe to sleep on her lap. Hearing an extraordinary noise and scuffling above, as was  

supposed, she hastily laid the child in the cradle and ran upstairs, where she was met  

by the bloodthirsty monsters, and seized and instantly murdered in the same way that  

they had dispatched Mr Marr and the boy. 

The child, disturbed with being hastily laid down, cried aloud, and the villains,  

doubtless apprehensive that it would cause an alarm, descended and, more horrible  

still to relate, cut its innocent throat so as nearly to sever its tender head from its body. 

By this time the girl returned with the oysters, and finding the shop door shut  

rang the bell; but no person answered. At this instant a watchman, passing on his  

round, asked what she did there; and, being answered, he pulled the bell with  

violence. This so much alarmed the villains that they made a precipitate retreat  

through a window in the back part of the house, across some mud, and along an  

intricate way, which no one that had not previously reconnoitred the situation could  

have readily found. 

The watchman, finding the bell still unanswered, went to the next-door  

neighbour, and gave an alarm. Some three or four men collecting together, it was  

determined to scale the wall which divided Mr Marr's back premises from those of the  

adjoining house. This was done without much loss of time, and there was presented  

the most woeful scene that, perhaps, ever disgraced human nature: the bodies of Mr  

Marr and his shop-boy, the latter of whom appeared from evident marks to have  

struggled for life with the assassins, near each other; that of Mrs Marr in the passage;  

and the infant in its cradle-all dead, but yet warm and weltering in their blood. The  

horrible scene for a moment petrified those who first entered; and they naturally  

feared the murderers might still be in the house plundering the property therein. They  

opened the street door and called out an alarm of murder, which spread with such  

rapidity that the neighbourhood was very soon in an alarm. The nightly watch  

mustered, and the drum of the melancholy beat to arms-in fine, though now near  

midnight, so great a crowd assembled that it was necessary to shut the doors while  

someone explained the cause of the alarm to those in the street. 

The coroner's jury, sitting upon the inquest of the deaths of this unfortunate  

family, brought in their verdict-"Guilty of wilful murder against some person or  

persons unknown." 

The interment of Mr and Mrs Marr and their infant son took place on Sunday,  

the 15th of December, 1811, at St George's Church in the East. 

The procession entered the aisle of the church in the following order:-the body  

of Mr Marr; the bodies of Mrs Marr and infant; the father and mother of Mr Marr; the  

mother of Mrs Marr; the four sisters of Mrs Marr; the only brother of Mr Marr; the  

next in relationship to the deceased; the friends of Mr and Mrs Marr. 

After the church ceremony the corpses were conveyed into the burial-ground,  

and deposited in one grave. An immense crowd attended, but the utmost decorum  

prevailed. 

Would that our sad tale of blood ended here! It is our painful task to record  

another instance of human atrocity, and, in universal belief, committed by the same  

relentless monster-another family doomed to the same horrid death; and they resided  

a very short distance from the spot where lived the late unfortunate Mr Marr. 

Scarcely had the horror excited by the mysterious and barbarous destruction of  

those unfortunate persons subsided than the neighbourhood in which they resided  

became again a scene of confusion, horror and dismay; and, by the spectacle which  

was presented on Thursday night, the 19th of December, 1811, a new and irresistible  

feeling of alarm pervaded all the inhabitants, lest some of their domestic circles  

should next become the object of midnight assassination. 

The circumstances of the horrid event to which we allude-as far as we have  

been able to collect them, from the most minute inquiry and investigation-are as  

follows. 

On Thursday night, the 19th of December, 1811, shortly after eleven o'clock,  

the neighbourhood of New Gravel Lane was alarmed by the most dreadful cries of  

"Murder!" Opposite the King's Arms public-house, at No. 81 Gravel Lane, numbers  

soon collected, and immediately it was ascertained that the cries which had excited  

such general alarm came from a man who was seen descending, almost in a state of  

nudity, by a line formed by the junction of two sheets, from the two pair-of-stairs  

window of the house in question. On reaching the extremity of the sheets, which was  

nearly eight feet from the ground, he was assisted by the watchman, who caught him  

in his arms, when he cried out, in the greatest agitation: "They are murdering the  

people in the house!" These words were no sooner uttered than a short consultation  

was held by the people assembled and it was at once resolved that an entry should be  

forced into the house through the cellar flap. This was shortly accomplished, and a  

man named Ludgate, a butcher, living in Ashwell's Buildings, Gravel Lane, and Mr  

Hawse, and a constable, entered; and almost at the same moment a gentleman, named  

Fox, obtained an entrance through some wooden bars at the side of the house, with a  

cutlass in his hand. On looking round the cellar, the first object that attracted their  

attention was the body of Mr Williamson, which lay at the foot of the stairs, with a  

violent contusion on the head, his throat dreadfully cut, and an iron crow by his side;  

they then proceeded upstairs into the parlour, where they found Mrs Williamson also  

dead, with her skull and her throat cut, and blood still issuing from the wounds, and  

near her lay the body of the servant-woman, whose head was also horribly bruised,  

and her throat cut in the most shocking manner. 

The following is a correct account of the examination of the witnesses before  

the magistrates of Shadwell Police-office; and the most satisfactory information we  

could obtain of this melancholy event. 

Mr Anderson was first examined: he deposed that he was a constable; he knew  

Mr and Mrs Williamson; they were characters highly respected in the neighbourhood,  

and for the space of fifteen years kept the King's Arms public-house, which was the  

resort of foreigners of every description. At eleven o'clock every night they invariably  

closed up their house. On Thursday night, the 19th December, 1811, ten minutes  

before eleven, witness called for a pot of beer. Mrs W. drew the beer, and said to him,  

'You shall not carry the beer home, I will send it.' During the time she was drawing  

the beer, Mr W. who was sitting by the fire, said to Mr Andrews, 'You are an officer,  

there has been a fellow listening at my door, with a brown coat on; if you should see  

him take him into custody, or tell me.' Mr A. answered, 'He certainly would, for his  

and his own safety.' These were the last words Mr A. mentioned, and then retired.  

Witness lived next door but one to the deceased; between twenty and thirty minutes  

after he left the King's Arms, he intended to go for another pot of beer; as soon as he  

got out of his house he heard a noise, when he saw the lodger lowering himself down  

into the street by the sheets. He ran into the house for his staff and proceeded to the  

spot. The watchman caught the lodger in his arms, when witness and others broke the  

cellar-flap open; they all then entered, and began to look round the cellar; on coming  

to the staircase, they saw Mr Williamson lying on his back, with his legs upon the  

stairs, his head downwards; by his side was an iron instrument, similar to a stone- 

mason's crow, about three feet long; in diameter three quarters of an inch; it was much  

stained with blood. Mr Williamson had received a wound on the head, his throat was  

dreadfully cut, his right leg was broken by a blow, and his hand severely cut. From  

these marks of violence, witness supposed Mr W. made great resistance, being a very  

powerful man. While witness and others were viewing the body, they heard a voice  

crying, 'Where is the old man?' At these words, they proceeded up into the sitting- 

room, when they saw Mrs Williamson lying on her left side; her skull was fractured,  

and her throat cut, and bleeding most profusely; near to Mrs Williamson was the  

servant-woman, lying on her back, with her head under the grate; her skull was more  

dreadfully fractured than that of her mistress, her throat most inhumanly cut, and none  

of the bodies were cold. Witness then stated that the premises were afterwards  

examined, and it was discovered that the murderers had made their escape from a  

back window looking into a piece of waste ground belonging to the London Dock  

Company. The sill of the window was stained with blood, and the sash remained  

thrown up. The distance which the villains had to jump did not exceed eight feet, and  

the ground beneath was soft clay, so that they could sustain no injury even had they  

fallen. From the waste ground in question there was no difficulty whatever in  

escaping, as it communicated with several bye-streets. 

John Turner, the man who escaped from the window, and who was a lodger in  

the house, deposed as follows: 'I went to bed about five minutes before eleven o'clock;  

I had not been in bed more than five or ten minutes before I heard the cry of "We shall  

all be murdered," which, I suppose, was the cry of the woman servant. I went  

downstairs, and I saw one of the villains cutting Mrs Williamson's throat, and rifling  

her pockets. 

'I immediately ran upstairs; I took up the sheets from my bed and fastened  

them together, and lashed them to the bed-posts, I called to the watchman to give the  

alarm; I was hanging out of the front window by the sheets; the watchman received  

me in his arms, naked as I was: a great mob had then assembled opposite the door: as  

soon as I got upon my legs, the door was forced open; I entered, and found the bodies  

lying as described. There was nobody lodged in the house but myself, except a grand- 

daughter of Mrs Williamson. I have lived in the house about eight months, and during  

that time I have found them to be the most peaceable people that could keep a public- 

house. The man whom I saw rifling Mrs Williamson's pocket, as far as I could see by  

the light in the room, was about six feet in height, dressed in a genteel style, with a  

long dark loose coat on. I said nothing to him; but, terrified, I ran upstairs and made  

my escape as already mentioned. When I was downstairs, I heard two or three very  

great sighs, and when I was first alarmed, I heard distinctly the words, "We shall all  

be murdered!" 

Turner further deposed, that, at the time he went to bed, Mrs Williamson was  

on the stairs taking up a silver punch-ladle and watch, which was to be raffled for on  

the Monday following, into her bed-room for security. 

The grand-daughter alluded to in Turner's evidence, was so affected that the  

magistrates asked her but few questions. 

It further appeared from general report, that Mr Williamson had been robbed  

of a watch, but whether any money had been taken from him was not known. The  

maker's name of the watch is said to be James Catchpole. 

Two persons were taken into custody on suspicion, one of whom was  

discharged, but the other, an Irishman, who was apprehended with a jar of spirits in  

his possession, was remanded for a second examination, not however from any  

suspicion that he committed the foul deed, but on account of his prevaricating in his  

statement, as to the mode in which the spirits came into his possession. 

The wounds on the heads of the unfortunate sufferers were evidently inflicted  

by an iron bar; and from their position, as well as from the cuts on the throat, one of  

the murderers appears to have been left-handed. The under part of the house is a  

skittle-ground, next to the entrance of which is the cellar door, by both of which  

entries it seems that the villains attempted to escape, as marks of blood were  

discovered upon them. During the time the horrid deed was perpetrating, a public- 

houses almost adjoining, was filled with people drinking, and a few doors on the other  

side is a rendezvous for seamen, all of which look into the waste ground alluded to. 

On the first alarm being given, a picquet of the Tower Hamlets militia, and  

several volunteers, assisted by the inhabitants and the constables, made a most minute  

search in all quarters for the offenders, but without finding any person to whom they  

could fix suspicion. 

The churchwardens and overseers of Shadwell parish held a meeting, and  

immediately advertised a reward of one hundred guineas for the discovery of the  

villains. 

The magistrates of Shadwell continued sitting the whole day, and the  

concourse of spectators before the office was equally numerous to that on the spot  

where the fatal murders happened. 

The deceased Mr J. Williamson was about fifty-six years of age; his wife, Mrs  

C. Williamson, about sixty; and Bridget Harrington, the servant-woman, fifty years of  

age. 

The coroner's jury brought in the same verdict as upon the bodies of the Marrs;  

and their interment was conducted in a similar manner to that of the first unfortunate  

family. 

The police-officers, who had been already on the alert, but had not as yet,  

overtaken the murderers, were all required, by order of the magistrates, to aid in the  

search, and many persons were apprehended on suspicion, against whom nothing  

could be brought to criminate them. 

Of the many examinations which took place at the Shadwell Police-office, the  

investigations of Mr Graham of the Bowstreet office, and many other active  

magistrates, we shall select such as fix these most dreadful crimes upon a man of the  

name of John Williams, said to have been an Irishman, who evaded justice by  

committing the additional sin of SUICIDE! 

This man, at length, was apprehended as one of the murderers; and, on his  

examination, John Frederic Ritchen, a Dane, also a prisoner under suspicion, as an  

accomplice stated, that he lodged in the same house with Williams for about twelve  

weeks and three or four days, but knows little of him, except as a fellow-lodger. On  

being minutely questioned, respecting his knowledge of two persons, a carpenter and  

a joiner, acquaintances of Williams he said, that about three or four weeks ago, he saw  

them drinking at the Pear Tree public-house with Williams, and since that time has  

seen them there without Williams. On the night of the murder of the Marr family, a  

few minutes before Williams came home, there was a knock at the door, and he went  

down to open it, when he found the key had been taken from the inside of the lock,  

and he called to the mother of Mrs Vermillee, the landlady, to come down and open  

the door. Hearing her coming down he went up to his own room; and, when there,  

heard her in conversation with a man, whose voice, he thinks, was that of one of the  

two men before-mentioned. A few minutes afterwards, Williams himself came in.  

This was almost half past one o'clock. One day last week (he believes three or four  

days before Williams was taken up) he observed that the large sandy-coloured  

whiskers which had before formed a striking feature of Williams's appearance had  

been cut off. About eleven o'clock of the day after the murder of the Marr family, he  

went from curiosity to examine the premises, which he entered, and saw the dead  

bodies. From thence he returned to the Pear Tree, where he found Williams in the  

back yard, washing out his stockings, but he did not tell Williams where be had been.  

On being asked by the magistrates, why he did not tell Williams, he answered, 'He did  

not know-be could not tell.' He was then questioned respecting his knowledge of the  

maul, and also the iron instrument, which is a round bar about an inch in diameter,  

between two and three feet in length, flattened at the end into the shape of a chisel, but  

not with a cutting edge, being apparently a tool for caulking. The maul, he said,  

resembled one he had seen about the Pear Tree public-house, but he could not identify  

it. A pair of blue woollen trousers, and also a pair of canvass trousers, were then  

produced, which had been found between the mattress and the bed-clothes of the  

hammock in which the examined slept at the Pear Tree. The legs of the blue trousers  

had evidently been washed, for the purpose of cleaning them from mud, of which the  

appearance was still perfectly visible in the creases, that had not been effectually  

cleansed. These trousers were damp at the time of the examination; the canvass  

trousers were also damp, but they presented no particular appearance. He stated, that  

both these pairs of trousers had formerly belonged to a person since gone to sea, and  

he had since worn them himself. 

Mrs Orr stated, that on the Saturday before Marr's murder, about half past one  

o'clock in the morning, she was getting up linen, when she heard a noise about the  

house, as if a man was attempting to break into the house. She was frightened, and  

asked, 'Who was there?' A voice answered, which she knew to be Williams, 'I am a  

robber!' She answered, 'Whether you are a robber or not, I will let you in, and am glad  

to see you.' Williams entered, seating himself down till the watchman was calling the  

hour of past two o'clock; Williams got up from his chair, asked the landlady if she  

would have a glass? she assented, but as he would not go for it, she went to the Pear  

Tree public-house, and could gain no admittance. She returned, when Williams  

enquired how many rooms there were in her house, and the situation of her back  

premises? She replied there were three rooms; and that her back yard communicated  

with Mrs Vermillee's house. The watchman came into Mrs Orr's house, which  

Williams resisted for some time. The watchman told Mrs On that he had picked up a  

chisel by the side of her window. Williams run out unobserved at this information;  

soon afterwards he returned; the watchman was going, when Williams stopped him,  

and desired him to go to the Pear Tree, and get some liquor. The house was then open.  

While the watchman was gone for the liquor, Williams took up the chisel, and said,  

D--n my eyes, where did you get this chisel!' Mrs Orr did not part with it, and retained  

the instrument till the Monday following. Hearing that Williams was examined, she  

went to Mrs Vermillee's, and shewed her the chisel.-Mrs Vermillee looked at it, and  

compared it with the tools in Peterson's chest, when it was found to bear the same  

marks, and declared that it was taken out of her house. Mrs Orr instantly delivered the  

chisel to the magistrates of Shadwell street office, as being a further trace to the  

villainy. Mrs Orr says she knew Williams for eleven weeks; he frequently nursed her  

child, and used to joke with her daughter, and once asked her whether she would be  

frightened if he came in the dead of the night to her bedside? The daughter replied,  

'No, if it was you, Mr Williams, I should, not.' Both the mother and daughter thought  

Williams an agreeable young man, and of a most insinuating address, and never  

thought he could be the man who would attempt to rob or murder. 

Sylvester Dryscoll was brought up, and informed by the magistrate that the  

enquiries respecting the liquors found in his possession turned out to be correct;  

therefore, upon that charge be was exonerated; but, till he gave some account of the  

bloody breeches found in his possession, he considered it his duty, as a magistrate, to  

commit him till the Tuesday following, which was accordingly done. 

The magistrates ordered the publication of the marks on the note found in the  

possession of Williams, for the purpose that any person having had such a note, or can  

at all trace the private marks, may apply immediately and give every information  

thereon. 

ONE  

BANK OF ENGLAND, 1811.  

No. 16755. To pay to Mr Henry Hase. No. 16755.  

on demand the sum of One Pound.  

269  

- Goodwin. 

ONE  

1811, Aug. 23, London, 23, Aug. 1811.  

For the Gov. and Comp.  

of the Bank of England.  

T. FROGGAT 

And indorsed on the back of the note,  

Golding to J.D. - 7/l2 11. 

Mr Capper, a magistrate of Shadwell office, attended on Mr Vermillee in  

Newgate. Mr Alderman Wood waited on the magistrates in the morning, and stated  

information, which was of great importance. 

The ripping chisel which was found in Mr Marr's house was conveyed to  

Newgate, in order to be identified by Mr Vermillee. The conference was private, and  

continued until four o'clock in the evening. Mr Vermillee gave testimony to the  

instrument, called a ripping hook, being among the chest of tools deposited in his  

house. We must here remind our readers that the said ripping book, about two feet in  

length, was found by the side of Mrs Marr, and it is the same which Mr V. has  

deposed that he knew perfectly well. The unfortunate person in confinement has  

likewise given information of another man, whom he conceives must be concerned in  

the late inhuman murders. 

The magistrate immediately forwarded directions to the different officers to go  

in pursuit, and every exertion was used to find out the man alluded to. 

Williams, previous to the murders, had large red whiskers, which seem to have  

been cut off very recently before his apprehension, and his hair is cut in a different  

manner to what it was before; he is about five feet nine inches in height, of an  

insinuating manner and pleasing countenance, and is not lame, as stated in some of  

the papers. 

Vermillee, the landlord of the Pear Tree public-house, at which the supposed  

murderer lodged, will be liberated from the debtor's side of Newgate, and will be  

further examined. 

John Williams was heavily ironed and confined in Coldbath-fields house of  

correction. 

For a considerable time after the perpetration of these sanguinary atrocities the  

magistrates devoted, without intermission, the whole of their time, from an early hour  

in the morning till midnight, to the incessant pursuit of the murderers. The number of  

persons dispatched in different directions greatly exceeds what is known to the public;  

and the private intimations received, so numerous as to justify a hope, that, by the  

laudable exertions of the magistrates and officers, the wretches who had thus outraged  

the peace of society would be speedily brought to justice and condign punishment. 

When the gaoler went to the room in the house of correction in Coldbath- 

fields, where Williams was confined, in order to call him to his last examination  

before the Shadwell police magistrates, his body was found dead, hanging to a beam;  

thus adding to his supposed crime that of self-murder! 

On the 31st December, his remains were privately removed, at eleven o'clock  

at night, from the cell in Coldbath-fields prison, where he committed suicide, and  

conveyed to St. George's watch-house, near the London Docks, preparatory to  

interment. Mr Capper, the magistrate, had an interview with the secretary for the  

home department, for the purpose of considering with what propriety the usual  

practice of burying suicides in the nearest cross-roads might be departed from in the  

present instance, and it was then determined that a public exhibition should be made  

of the body through the neighbourhood which had been the scene of the monster's  

crimes. In conformity with this decision, the following procession moved from the  

watch-house, about half past ten o'clock on Tuesday morning: 

Several hundred constables; with their staves, clearing the way 

The newly-formed patrole, with drawn cutlasses 

Another body of constables 

Parish officers of St. George's, St. Paul's, and Shadwell, on horseback 

Peace officers, on horseback 

Constables 

The high constable of the county of Middlesex on horseback 

THE BODY OF WILLIAMS 

Extended at full length on an Inclined platform, erected on the cart, about four  

feet high at the head, and gradually sloping towards the horse, giving a full view of  

the body, which was dressed in blue trousers and a white and blue striped waistcoat,  

but without a coat, as when found in the cell. On the left side of the head the fatal  

mall, and on the right the ripping chisel, with which the murders were perpetrated,  

were exposed to view. The countenance of Williams was ghastly in the extreme, and  

the whole had an appearance too horrible for description. 

A strong body of constables brought up the rear. 

The procession advanced slowly up Ratcliffe-Highway, accompanied by an  

immense concourse of persons, eager to get a sight of the murderer's remains. When  

the cart came opposite to the late Mr Marr's house, a halt was made for near a quarter  

of an hour. The procession then moved down Old Gravel-lane, along Wapping, up  

New Crane-lane, and into New Gravel-lane. When the platform arrived at the late Mr  

Williamson's house, a second halt took place. It then proceeded up the hill, and again  

entered Ratcliffe Highway, down which it moved into Cannon-street, and advanced to  

St. George's turnpike, where the new road is intersected by Cannon-street. There a  

grave, about six feet deep, had been prepared, immediately over which the main  

water-pipe runs. Between twelve and one o'clock the body was taken from the  

platform, and lowered into the grave immediately after which a stake was driven  

through it; and the pit being covered, this solemn ceremony concluded. 

During the last half hour the crowd had increased immensely; they poured in  

from all parts, but their demeanour was perfectly quiet. All the shops in the  

neighbourhood were shut, and the windows and tops of the houses were crowded with  

spectators. On every side, mingled with execrations of the murderer, were heard  

fervent prayers for the speedy detection of his accomplice or accomplices.

JOHN CLAYTON and WILLIAM JENKINS  

Executed for Burglary

THE activity, daring and ingenuity of the London 'cracksmen' is well  

exemplified in the following case: 

It appears that Reid, a constable belonging to Perry's party of patrol, received  

information from a person technically called a 'nose'-that is, an informer or spy-that a  

set was made at the house of a Mrs Martin, a lady residing at No 4 Bury Street, St  

James's, by a party of thieves, who had derived sufficient knowledge of the customs  

of the house from the servant girl, Mary Wakelin, to induce them to suppose that the  

robbery would be a profitable speculation. Their mode of making themselves  

acquainted with this circumstance was as follows: The girl, like most others of her  

condition and years, was vain of her personal charms, and the prisoner Clayton was a  

young man of pleasing manners and insinuating address. The 'crack' was fixed upon,  

and Clayton was set to work upon the girl's vanity, and so obtain the necessary  

information to enable his assistants and associates to complete it cleverly. He  

addressed her one evening at the public-house to which she was in the habit of going  

to fetch her mistress's beer and, having passed a few encomiums upon her beauty, was  

soon admitted into conversation. The impression which he made was not  

unfavourable, and he was too good a judge to allow an opportunity to pass, by which  

he might benefit himself. 

Day after day he was found at the same place, and each day he was more  

attentive than the last, till the girl at length looked upon him in the light of a suitor. He  

informed her that he was a trunk-maker living in Oxford Street, and in return obtained  

information that her mistress was in the habit of visiting the theatres or some other  

place of public amusement nearly every night. He did not fail to improve upon his  

acquaintance at every fresh interview, and at length a Monday evening was fixed  

upon, when the lover was to be admitted to spend an hour with the girl in the kitchen  

during her mistress's absence. 

It was at this period that the officers gained information of the intended  

robbery, and they in consequence obtained permission to occupy a room opposite to  

Mrs Martin's house, from which they could witness all that passed. Half-past eight  

o'clock was the time appointed by Mary to see her swain, and the constables took care  

to be as punctual as he. A few minutes before the time, they saw four men and two  

women arrive at the spot, from whom Clayton separated himself and went and  

knocked at the door. He was, however, doomed to be disappointed. The mistress was  

unwell and could not go out, and therefore, with a kiss or two and an affectionate hug,  

the sweethearts were obliged to part, not, however, without fixing the next Tuesday to  

carry out their design. Tuesday night came, and the officers were again at their post;  

but the loving pair separated after taking a little gin together. Wednesday evening  

passed in the same manner, Mrs Martin being still too unwell to go out; and  

notwithstanding the most praiseworthy attention on the part of the supposed trunk- 

maker to his inamorata, every evening until the following Tuesday passed in the same  

way, the professions of inviolable attachment made by the tender-hearted youth  

growing each night more strong, and his anxiety to enter the house increasing at every  

meeting. On the Tuesday night, however, the girl told Clayton that her mistress was so  

much recovered that she expected she would be well enough to go the following night  

to the play, and on Wednesday night, about eight o'clock, Mrs Martin, accompanied  

by a male and female friend, went in a coach to the theatre. A few minutes after, the  

servant girl came out, and returned shortly with Clayton, arm in arm together. They  

talked together several minutes at the door, and then went in. In about a quarter of an  

hour, Clayton came out, and returned in about five minutes, accompanied by another  

man, Clayton knocked at the door, and the girl opened it. She appeared to refuse to let  

the other man in; but Clayton forced open the door, and the other man rushed in. 

The officers, who had been upon the close watch every night, then went over  

to the house and heard all three talking very loud in the kitchen. From the noise, and  

what they saw through a keyhole, they ascertained that the two men were dragging the  

girl upstairs against her will, and she was exclaiming, 'Lord have mercy upon me!  

what shall I do?' One of the men told her if she made such a noise he would blow her  

brains out, and presented a pistol to her head and kept it there. They forced her  

upstairs, and the officers heard doors being broken open, &c. A few minutes after, the  

second man came downstairs, and returned with the kitchen poker. They then heard  

other doors break open, but not hearing the noise of the girl continued, the officers  

were afraid she was being murdered, and were proceeding to force the street-door  

with an iron crow, when the girl exclaimed it was her mistress, gave a sudden spring,  

released herself from her assailants, and ran downstairs, with the robbers after her.  

They got into the passage just as the officers had entered. Clayton and Jenkins  

appeared as if nothing had happened, and wanted to get out; but Perry and Reid seized  

them. The villains made a most desperate resistance, which they were enabled to do,  

being very tall, stout, powerful men; but they were eventually secured. On searching  

Clayton, a large clasp knife and a bad dollar were found. On Jenkins were found a  

pistol, two bad dollars, &c. On examining the house, the officers discovered that a  

large quantity of property had been packed up, ready to be carried off. Several rooms  

and closets were broken open, and the thieves were in the act of breaking open a chest  

when they were disturbed. The trial of these desperadoes came on at the Old Bailey,  

on the 15th of January, when Mary Wakelin, before named, deposed that she first  

became acquainted with the prisoner Clayton about eight or ten days before the 1st of  

January. He then came to her mistress's house, when she answered the door, and told  

her his name was Wilson and that he had a letter for Mrs Martin, which was the name  

her mistress went by. A night or two afterwards he threw things down the area. Her  

mistress sent her out with a message, and she then saw Clayton, who asked her to take  

something to drink, which she at first refused; but upon his insisting they went and  

had something to drink. She saw him a night or two afterwards in the streets, as she  

went out on an errand, and frequently after that; but she never saw the prisoner  

Jenkins till the night of the 1st of January. 

The jury found both the prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced to death.  

The fearful sentence was carried into effect on the scaffold before the Debtors' door,  

Newgate, on the 19th February 1812, at the usual hour, and with the accustomed  

solemnity. Clayton was twenty-eight years of age, and Jenkins thirty-five. 

After the culprits had been divested of their irons, Clayton observed to Jenkins  

it was an awful moment, and he exhorted him to cheer his spirits, and die with manly  

fortitude-adding that the sentence was just, and trusting their example would warn  

others against keeping bad company.

COLONEL BROWNE  

An American Loyalist, convicted in the Court of King's Bench at  

Westminster, 21st of February, 1812, of Forgery at Common Law, and  

Sentenced to Imprisonment in Newgate

THIS was an information against the defendant, Colonel Browne, for a forgery  

at common law. The information charged him with having forged certain instruments,  

purporting to be signed by George Harrison, Esq., one of the law clerks to the  

Treasury, and by the Hon. Cecil Jenkinson, Esq., one of the under-secretaries of State,  

with a view to defrauding the Government, by surreptitiously obtaining a grant of six  

thousand acres of land in the island of St Vincent. 

Mr Attorney-General stated the circumstances of the case as follows. 

In the year 1809 Colonel Browne represented to the Government that he had a  

large gang of negroes which he had nurtured with particular care, and had succeeded  

in reducing them to such domestic habits that they multiplied as fast as by the course  

of nature they would die off, and he prayed for an allotment of the Crown lands in the  

island of St Vincent. It was thought that he had claims on the Government of this  

country, having suffered as an American Loyalist; and as the Government had at that  

time a part of the lands formerly allotted to the Caribs, in consequence a grant was  

made to him of six thousand acres. It was discovered that a part of these lands had  

been granted to other occupiers, who held at the will of the Crown, and as they had  

expended their money to reduce the land to a state of cultivation it was thought  

inequitable to expel them, and they therefore were allowed to purchase, which was  

done to the amount of sixty thousand pounds. But, in order to indemnify Colonel  

Browne for this disappointment, Government gave him half the money-namely, thirty  

thousand pounds-which was considered a munificent recompense. It happened  

however shortly afterwards, in the year 1810, that Sir Charles Brisbane, the Governor  

of St Vincent, received a dispatch, under the official seal of the Secretary of State's  

office, directing him to make a grant of the same quantity of land which had been  

deducted from the six thousand acres of land originally granted to Colonel Browne,  

which direction purported to be by order of the Lords of the Treasury, and was signed  

by Mr Jenkinson, the Under-Secretary of State. A discussion, however, ensuing with  

Colonel's Browne's agent, the Governor thought proper to send home for instructions,  

when it was discovered that the whole was a forgery, no such orders having ever  

issued from the Secretary of State's office in England. How Colonel Browne got  

possession of the seal of office the Attorney-General was unable to state, but he was  

able to prove that the papers were written, all but the signatures, in the office of a Mr  

Stevens, a law stationer in Chancery Lane, and that Colonel Browne brought the  

rough draft, and took them away when finished. The plan which accompanied them  

was drawn by a clerk in the Duke of Bedford's office, who was employed by Colonel  

Browne, who was traced through giving directions for the forged instruments. It was  

also proved no other persons had any interest in the fraud. Under these circumstances  

no doubt could be entertained of the guilt of the defendant. 

These circumstances were proved by Sir Charles Brisbane, Mr Harrison, and  

Mr Stevens and his clerks, who engrossed the papers by Colonel Browne's direction. 

Lord Moira, Sir Alfred Clarke, and several gentlemen of rank, gave a high  

character to Colonel Browne; but the jury, without hesitation, found him guilty. He  

was sentenced to imprisonment in Newgate.

BENJAMIN WALSH, ESQ., M.P.  

Convicted in 1812 of feloniously stealing a Large Sum of Money from Sir  

Thomas Plomer, his Majesty's Solicitor-General, and pardoned on a Case  

reserved for the Opinion of the Twelve Judges

MR BENJAMIN WALSH had long been known in the City of London as a  

dashing mercantile character. In co-partnership with Mr Nisbett he contracted with the  

Chancellor of the Exchequer for a lottery of fifty thousand tickets. This proved, to  

such a man as Walsh, a very lucky speculation. He rubbed off his debts by a Statute of  

Bankruptcy, and soon procured for himself a seat in the Parliament of his country. 

Walsh and Nisbett bustled through their broken fortunes and, from the  

counting-house desk, the former, as we have already observed, was placed in the seat  

of a legislator for his country. There, among "the great men, the grave men, and the  

sage men of the land," he beheld a fair field for the exercise of his talents. Elevation to  

rank and power soon wipes away every former stain of reputation, and effaces each  

blot of character. 

Among the dignified of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Plomer, it  

seemed, had not a whit worse opinion of his brother Member, Walsh, than if no  

lottery contract had been made, nor any bankruptcy against him issued forth. In short,  

Sir Thomas entrusted him with a very large sum of money to purchase Government  

securities; but Walsh laid it out in the stocks of the United States of America in his  

own name, and ran off towards that land of refuge for the guilty. He was, however,  

fortunately overtaken by the arm of justice at the port from whence he intended to fly  

his native country,  

Walsh was pursued, by the solicitor of the duped knight and a Bow Street  

runner, to Falmouth; to which port it was discovered he had fled by stopping his  

letters, under a government order, at the General Post Office. Young Members of  

Parliament were fond of franking the letters of their friends; and it appeared that  

Walsh was so very tenacious of this prerogative that, in an ignominious concealed  

flight, he still endorsed his letters "FREE B. WALSH." 

This degenerate legislator for his country was, like the meanest felon,  

arraigned at the bar of the Old Bailey, charged with feloniously stealing twenty-two  

bank-notes of one thousand pounds each, and one bank-note for two hundred pounds,  

the property of Sir Thomas Plomer, Kt., with intent to defraud him of the said sum of  

money; in other counts of the indictment the offence was variously charged, to which  

the prisoner pleaded not guilty. 

Mr Garrow, in stating the case on the part of the prosecution, observed that if  

it had been possible for the prosecutor in this action to have extended indulgence or  

commiseration towards the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, the honourable and  

humane feelings and character of the prosecutor would have most willingly abstained  

from the present prosecution; but from the nature of the case he was called upon to  

discharge an important public duty which was indispensable. The prosecutor was his  

Majesty's Solicitor-General, and had long been acquainted with the gentleman whom  

he had now the painful duty to prosecute. His father had been a director of the Bank  

of England, and from this the prosecutor was induced to trust the prisoner as a  

stockbroker. He then proceeded to state the case as it appeared in evidence, from  

which he concluded, that at the time of the prisoner's getting the means into his  

power, it was his intention to perpetrate the felony. 

Sir Thomas Plomer, being sworn, stated that he had for many years employed  

the prisoner as a stockbroker, and in the month of August last apprised him that he  

had made a contract for the purchase of an estate, for which he was to pay at  

Michaelmas, and it would be necessary for him to sell out stock to a considerable  

amount. The prisoner advised at that time to postpone selling out, as he expected a  

considerable rise in stock, and the longer he postponed it the better; but in November  

the prisoner urged him strongly to sell out, as stock would fall considerably, saying he  

had consulted the most intelligent persons upon the subject. In consequence of this he  

gave him authority to sell out stock to the amount of thirteen thousand, four hundred  

pounds of three per cents., and eighteen thousand, six hundred pounds of reduced  

Consols. On the following day he called at the prisoner's office in the city, who told  

him he had made the contract for the sale, and it was agreed to be transferred on the  

Wednesday or Thursday following, which accordingly took place. He then consulted  

the prisoner on the best way of disposing of the money until he should want it, and he  

advised the purchase of Exchequer bills, but it was then, he said, too late in the day  

for that purpose. The next day the prisoner called at his chambers at Lincoln's Inn, and  

gave him a cheque on Messrs Goslings, his bankers, for twenty-two thousand pounds,  

for the purpose of purchasing these Exchequer bills, and he promised to return with  

them that day at four o'clock; this was on Thursday, the 5th of December. He returned  

about half-past four, appeared agitated, and complained of an asthma; and after a little  

pause told him he had made the contract with Mr Trotter, Mr Coutts's broker; but the  

Exchequer bills could not be delivered until Saturday, as they were locked up in the  

bank, and Mr Coutts was not in town; and that he should call on that day at three  

o'clock. At that time he produced six thousand pounds in Exchequer bills, which he  

said he would lodge with his bankers, along with the receipt for the balance. He  

afterwards inquired at his bankers, and found the Exchequer bills for six thousand  

pounds were lodged, but no receipt, and he never saw the prisoner after until he saw  

him in Bow Street. 

William Ewins, clerk at Goslings & Co.'s, proved the payment of the cheque  

for twenty-two thousand pounds to the prisoner in person; Mr William Hannan proved  

the purchase of six thousand, five hundred pounds in Exchequer bills, by order of the  

prisoner; and George Hankley, his clerk, proved the delivery of them to the prisoner. 

The case on the part of the prosecution being closed, the prisoner declined  

making any defence. 

Mr Scarlet, for the prisoner, in addressing the Court, hoped he would not be  

understood to entertain any other sentiments of this offence than a conviction of the  

moral turpitude of the prisoner-and he was satisfied the prisoner himself entertained  

no other sentiment, and felt all the contrition belonging to such a crime-but it now  

became his duty to make such objections as occurred to him. First, there could be no  

charge of this sort for stealing the cheque, for it was in evidence the prosecutor had  

given it to the prisoner for a specific purpose; and it was not altogether misapplied, for  

he had purchased some Exchequer bills, and the law did not allow the act of felony to  

be in part separated. The second objection was under the statute of the second year of  

the reign of George II., by which the security intended by the legislature was to such  

property as was still available to the party himself-in this case the prosecutor had  

parted with all control over the cheque by delivering it to the prisoner. Thirdly, the  

felonious intent of the party taking was not in itself sufficient to constitute a felony  

when the party to whom the property belonged had relinquished his control over it. In  

support of these objections, he referred to several cases in point. 

After some observations by Mr Garrow, Mr Scarlet and Mr Alley, it was  

agreed that the jury should find a verdict subject to the future judgment of the twelve  

judges upon the Chief Baron's report. 

The Chief Baron acquiesced in this arrangement, and then, addressing the jury,  

adverted to that part of the evidence which went to show the previous intent of the  

prisoner to commit the felony; observing, at the same time, that it was impossible,  

upon such evidence, not to find the prisoner guilty; who, in consequence of the  

objections made by his counsel, would have all the benefit of the judgment of the  

twelve judges hereafter. 

The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty. 

During the whole of the trial the prisoner was much affected. The court was  

exceedingly crowded from an early hour, and several Members of both Houses of  

Parliament attended to witness this extraordinary trial. 

The judges who presided at the trial of Walsh, by no means satisfied with the  

verdict, reserved a case for their brethren. The result of their opinion will be found in  

the following report of the Lord Chief Baron, and the pardon of the Prince Regent: -- 

THE LORD CHIEF BARON TO MR SECRETARY RYDER  

February 15, 1812  

SIR,-I have the honour to acquaint you, for the information of his Royal  

Highness the Prince Regent, that Benjamin Walsh was indicted before me at the last  

sessions held at the Old Bailey, for stealing from Sir Thomas Plomer a certain order  

for the payment of twenty-two thousand, two hundred pounds, and also stealing bank- 

notes to that amount. 

The facts of his having formed the design of converting this money to his use,  

and of actually so converting much the greater part of it, were proved without  

contradiction. 

But doubts having occurred to Mr Justice Le Blanc and myself (Mr Justice  

Chambre being absent from indisposition), the case was reserved for the judges to  

consider whether the facts proved amounted to the crime of larceny. 

The argument of counsel concluded last night; and the case was considered by  

ten judges present (two being confined by illness), who were of opinion that the facts  

proved did not, in estimation of law, amount to felony. 

The prisoner having been convicted of that offence, I am humbly to  

recommend him as a proper object of his Majesty's pardon, I am, etc. 

(Signed) AR. MACDONALD.

BENJAMIN WALSH--FREE PARDON 

In the Name and on Behalf of his Majesty.--GEORGE, P. R. 

Whereas Benjamin Walsh was, at a Session holden at the Old Bailey in  

January last, tried and convicted of felony, but judgment was respited; We, in  

consideration of some circumstances humbly represented unto Us, touching the said  

conviction, are graciously pleased to extend Our grace and mercy unto him, and to  

grant him Our Free Pardon for his said crime: Our will and pleasure therefore is, you  

cause the said Benjamin Walsh to be forthwith discharged out of custody; and for so  

doing this shall be your Warrant. 

Given at our Court at Carleton House, the 20th day of February, 1812, in the  

fifty-second year of our Reign. 

By the Command of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the name and  

on the behalf of his Majesty,  

R. RYDER.  

To our trusty and well-beloved our justices of Gaol Delivery for the City of  

London and County of Middlesex, the Sheriffs of the said City and County, and all  

others whom it may concern. 

The Commons expelled Walsh from his seat in their House; and he was again  

made a bankrupt, whereupon poor Sir Thomas found himself entitled only to a pitiful  

dividend under the second commission.

GEORGE SKENE  

Chief Clerk of the Queen Square Police Office, Westminster. Executed  

before Newgate, 18th of March, 1812, for Forgery

GEORGE SKENE, who was chief clerk of the Queen Square police office,  

Westminster, was indicted at the Old Bailey on the 15th of January, 1812, and brought  

to trial at the bar of that court. The indictment charged him with uttering forged  

receipts for the payments of money, in four instances, with intent to defraud his  

Majesty. 

Mr Abbott opened the case, and it appeared that the prisoner had presented  

forged receipts from four different persons, purporting to have been signed by them- 

viz. thirty-six pounds, eight shillings when was charged to him seventeen pounds,  

nine shillings; eleven pounds, ten shillings for printing, when the printer's bill was  

four pounds, eleven shillings. There were two other forged receipts, purporting to be  

from Mr Ryder, for rent, and Mr Stanton, for stationery, with considerable additional  

charges. 

The principal witness was Mr Baldwin, receiver-general to the several police  

offices, who settled accounts quarterly with each office, with a statement from the  

chief clerk at each office, of fines, fees, etc., received by the office-the salaries of the  

magistrates excepted. He believed the forged receipts in question to be in the  

prisoner's handwriting. The prisoner attended on witness at the Secretary of State's  

office, where he presented the forged vouchers. The fees and fines obtained at the  

office were given to witness, in part payment of the police establishment, but such  

were inadequate to the demand. The prisoner's salary was two hundred pounds a year. 

The forgeries were severally proved to the four receipts by the handwriting,  

which was proved to be the prisoner's. 

The prisoner, being called on for his defence, stated that his embarrassment  

prevented him from addressing the Bench, but he declared to God and his conscience  

he had no intention to wrong anyone, and he attributed the error in his accounts to his  

having been absent five hundred miles from London on professional business. 

The Marquis of Huntly gave the prisoner an excellent character. He had  

known him many years, and he had always considered him a man of strict integrity,  

incapable of an act of injustice. 

The other witnesses to character were chiefly magistrates-viz. Messrs Nares,  

Fielding, Storey, Carrick, Rhode, Bernie, etc., and Captain Duff of the navy. The  

above gentlemen spoke in the highest terms of the prisoner's honesty and integrity. 

The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up the evidence, observed that such a  

character of a prisoner was perhaps never heard in any court. He observed that the  

character of a well-spent life had its weight in cases of doubt, but where the weight of  

evidence was conclusive against a prisoner it was much to be lamented that character  

had been forfeited. If any doubt existed (but he, the judge, could point out none) the  

jury would give the prisoner the benefit. 

He was found guilty and sentenced to death. 

From the moment of the conviction of this unhappy man till the Friday before  

his execution he was buoyed up by the hope of the Royal mercy; and a paragraph  

appeared in some of the public prints stating that he had received the Royal pardon.  

But these hopes were dissipated on the Friday before his execution, when he was  

given to understand that he had no mercy to expect. He expressed his perfect  

resignation to his fate. In the course of Tuesday, the day before his execution, many of  

his most intimate friends took their leave; and about four o'clock he, in company with  

Lord Robert Seymour, took the Sacrament. 

At an early hour on Wednesday, the 18th of March, 1812, he was attended by  

the ordinary of Newgate, until summoned to the press-yard; from whence, at eight  

o'clock, he proceeded to the scaffold. Previous to ascending the platform he seemed  

considerably affected, but after a few seconds he resumed his fortitude, and taking off  

his hat advanced, and submitted himself to the executioner, who, having performed  

his melancholy office, retired, leaving Dr Ford with him in prayer. In two minutes  

afterwards the platform fell. After being suspended the usual time, the body was cut  

down, placed in a coffin, and carried within the prison, where it remained until eight  

o'clock that evening, and was then delivered to his friends. 

The deceased was of a most respectable family in the north of Scotland. His  

wife, who was burnt to death about four years before, had been previously the wife of  

the Earl of Fife, then Mr Duff. He was formerly clerk at the Shadwell police office,  

and from thence went to the Queen Square office as chief clerk. He had received a  

good education, and possessed considerable mental acquirements.

JOHN BELLINGHAM  

Executed for the Murder of the Right Honourable Spencer Perceval,  

Chancellor of the Exchequer, by shooting him in the House of Commons, in  

May, 1812

Portrait of John Bellingham

ON the 11th of May, in the year 1812, an event occurred which excited deep  

regret in the minds of the whole of the British public-the death of the Right  

Honourable Spencer Perceval, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the hand of an  

assassin. 

John Bellingham, the author of this crime, was brought up in a counting-house  

in London, and afterwards went to Archangel, where he lived during a period of three  

years in the service of a Russian merchant. Having returned to England, he was  

married to a Miss Nevill, the daughter of a respectable merchant and shipbroker, who  

at that time resided at Newry, but who subsequently removed to Dublin. 

Bellingham, being a person of active habits and of considerable intelligence,  

was subsequently employed by some merchants in the Russian trade, by whom he was  

induced again to visit Archangel, and he in consequence proceeded thither,  

accompanied by his wife, in the year 1804. His principal dealings were with the firm  

of Dorbecker & Co.; but before twelve months had expired a misunderstanding arose  

between them, and each party made pecuniary claims upon the other. The subject was  

referred by the Governor-General to the decision of four merchants, two of whom  

Bellingham was allowed to select from his countrymen resident on the spot, and by  

the award of these arbitrators Bellingham was found to be indebted to the house of  

Dorbecker & Co. in the sum of two thousand roubles; but this sum he refused to pay,  

and appealed to the Senate against the decision. 

In the meantime a criminal suit had been instituted against him by the owners  

of a Russian ship which had been lost in the White Sea. They accused him of having  

written an anonymous letter to the underwriters in London, stating that the insurances  

of that ship were fraudulent transactions; in consequence of which the payment for her  

loss was resisted. No satisfactory proof being adduced, Bellingham was acquitted; but  

before the termination of the suit he attempted to quit Archangel, and being stopped  

by the police, whom he resisted, he was taken to prison, but was soon after liberated,  

through the influence of the British consul, Sir Stephen Sharp, to whom he had made  

application, requesting to be protected from what he considered the injustice of the  

Russian authorities. 

Soon after this the Senate confirmed the award of the arbitrators, and  

Bellingham was delivered over to the College of Commerce, a tribunal established,  

and acknowledged by treaty, for taking cognisance of commercial matters relating to  

British subjects. He was to remain in custody till he discharged the debt of the two  

thousand roubles; but his confinement was by no means severe, for he had permission  

to walk wherever he pleased, attended by an officer belonging to the College. Lord  

Granville Leveson Gower being at this time ambassador at the Russian Court,  

Bellingham made frequent application, and at various times received from his  

secretary small sums of money to support him during his confinement, One night, in  

particular, he rushed into his lordship's house at St Petersburg, and requested  

permission to remain all night to avoid being secured by the police, whom he had  

escaped. This was granted, although the ambassador had no authority to protect him  

from a legal arrest; but it appears he was afterwards retaken, and, being confined by  

the authorities of the country, the British ambassador could have no pretence to solicit  

his release. His lordship, however, in a conversation with the Minister for Foreign  

Affairs, expressed a personal wish that the Russian Government, seeing no prospect  

of recovering the money from Bellingham, would liberate him on condition of his  

immediately returning to England; but we are not told what effect was produced, as  

the ambassador soon after quitted the Russian Court. 

Bellingham having, by some means or other, procured his liberation, in the  

year 1809 returned to England, and at Liverpool commenced the business of an  

insurance-broker. It appears, however, that, from a constant recital of the  

circumstances which had occurred in Russia, his complaints were aggravated in his  

own mind into grievances, and he at length began to talk of demanding redress from  

the Government for what he termed the culpable misconduct of the officer, Lord  

Granville Leveson Gower, and his secretary, in omitting to defend his rights as a  

British subject. He eventually wrote to the Marquis Wellesley, setting forth the nature  

of his case and the grounds upon which he expected that some compensation would  

be made. By the noble Marquis he was referred to the Privy Council, and by that body  

to the Treasury. His efforts being unattended with success in either quarter, he  

determined to proceed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Perceval), with a view  

to obtaining his sanction and support for his demand. Mr Perceval, however-having  

made himself master of the case submitted to him-declined to interfere, and Mr  

Bellingham was then advised by his friends that the only resource left to him was a  

petition to Parliament. As an inhabitant of Liverpool, he applied to General Gascoyne,  

then Member for that city, to present a petition to the House of Commons; but that  

honourable gentleman, having ascertained upon inquiry that the case was unsupported  

by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, refused to have anything to do with it. Driven  

now to pursue a course quite unusual in such cases, he petitioned the Prince Regent;  

but from him he was referred again to the Treasury, and he again received an  

intimation that all applications from him must be futile. Three years had now been  

spent in these constant and fruitless attacks upon the Government, but the unfortunate  

and misguided gentleman appeared even yet to cherish hopes that his case would be  

attended to. On one occasion, it is reported, he carried his wife-who had in vain  

striven to wean him from what she considered to be his malady-and another lady to  

the Secretary of State's office for the purpose of showing them the success with which  

his exertions were attended; and although he then, as he had before, received a flat  

denial of his claims, he yet continued to assure them that he did not in the least doubt  

that ere long all his hopes would be made good, and he would receive compensation  

for his sufferings. He now adopted a new, and certainly an unprecedented, mode of  

attack. He wrote to the police magistrates of Bow Street in the following terms:- 

TO THEIR WORSHIPS THE POLICE MAGISTRATES OF THE PUBLIC OFFICE  

IN BOW STREET 

SIRS,-  

I much regret its being my lot to have to apply to your worships under most  

peculiar and novel circumstances. For the particulars of the case I refer to the enclosed  

letter of Mr Secretary Ryder, the notification from Mr Perceval, and my petition to  

Parliament, together with the printed papers herewith. The affair requires no further  

remark than that I consider his Majesty's Government to have completely  

endeavoured to close the door of justice, in declining to have, or even to permit, my  

grievances to be brought before Parliament for redress, which privilege is the  

birthright of every individual. The purport of the present is, therefore, once more to  

solicit his Majesty's Ministers, through your medium, to let what is right and proper  

be done in my instance, which is all I require. Should this reasonable request be  

finally denied, I shall then feel justified in executing justice myself-in which case I  

shall be ready to argue the merits of so reluctant a measure with his Majesty's  

Attorney-General, wherever and whenever I may be called upon so to do. In the hopes  

of averting so abhorrent but compulsive an alternative I have the honour to be, sirs,  

your very humble and obedient servant,  

JOHN BELLINGHAM.  

No. 9 NEW MILLMAN STREET,  

March 23, 1812 

This letter was at once conveyed to the Members of the Government, but it  

was treated by them as a mere threat, and no further notice was taken of it than, on Mr  

Bellingham's again presenting himself, by a fresh refusal being given to him by Mr  

Read. Once more he applied to the Treasury, and again he was told that he had  

nothing to expect; and, according to his statement, Mr Hill, whom he now saw, told  

him that he might resort to whatever measures he thought fit. This he declared he  

considered a carte blanche to take justice into his own hands, and he accordingly  

determined to take such measures of revenge as he madly supposed would effectually  

secure that attention and consideration for his case which he deemed it had not  

received, and to which it was in his opinion fully entitled. 

This unhappy determination being made, he began to make the necessary  

preparations for the foul deed which he contemplated. His first step was to make  

himself acquainted with the persons of those Ministers who had seats in the House of  

Commons, and for this purpose he nightly visited the House, and there usually took  

his seat in the gallery appropriated to strangers; and, having obtained a general  

knowledge of their persons, he afterwards posted himself in the lobby of the House, in  

order to be able to identify them. He then purchased a pair of pistols, with powder and  

ball, and had an additional pocket made in his coat for carrying them the more  

conveniently.

The Assassination of Spencer Perceval by Bellingham

On the evening of the 11th of May, 1812, he took his station behind the  

folding-doors leading into the body of the House, and at five o'clock, as Mr Perceval  

advanced up the lobby, he presented one of his pistols and fired. His aim was true, and  

the ball entered the left breast of his victim and passed through his heart. Mr Perceval  

reeled a short distance, and exclaiming, "Murder!" in a low tone of voice, fell to the  

ground. He was instantly picked up by Mr Smith, Member for Norwich, and another  

gentleman, and carried into the office of the Speaker's secretary, where he expired  

almost immediately. Loud cries of "Shut the door; let no one out!" were heard  

immediately after the shot was fired, and several persons exclaimed: "Where's the  

murderer?" Bellingham, who still held the pistol in his hand, answered, "I am the  

unfortunate man," and he was immediately seized and searched. Mr V. G. Dowling  

was among the first who went up to him, and on his examining his person he found in  

his left-hand trousers-pocket a pistol loaded with ball and primed. There were also  

found upon him an opera-glass, with which he had been accustomed to examine the  

persons of the Members of the House while sitting in the gallery, and a number of  

papers. Upon his being interrogated as to his motives for committing such an act he  

replied: "Want of redress, and denial of justice." 

During the momentary confusion which followed the firing of the pistol he  

made no attempt to escape; and though when taken into custody he betrayed some  

agitation, he soon recovered his self-possession, and with great calmness answered  

every question put to him. 

During his examination before the magistrates upstairs in the House of  

Commons he still retained his self-possession, and even corrected a witness as to an  

omission in his evidence. He persisted in denying any personal enmity to Mr Perceval,  

for whose death he expressed the greatest sorrow, separating, by a confusion of ideas,  

the man from the Minister; and seemed to think he had not injured the individual  

though he had taken away the life of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 

This event excited the greatest sensation in the country. A Cabinet Council  

was called, and the mails were stopped, until instructions were prepared to secure  

tranquillity in the districts; for at first it was apprehended that the assassin was  

instigated by political motives, and that he was connected with some treasonable  

association. 

Measures being provided for securing order through the country and the  

metropolis, Bellingham was removed, under a strong military escort, about one  

o'clock in the morning, to Newgate, and conducted to a room adjoining the chapel.  

One of the head turnkeys and two other persons sat up with him all night. He retired  

to bed soon after his arrival at the jail; but he was disturbed during the night, and had  

no sound sleep. He rose soon after seven o'clock, and requested some tea for  

breakfast, of which, however, he took but little. No private persons were admitted to  

see him, but he was visited in the course of the day by the sheriffs and some other  

public functionaries. He conversed very cheerfully with the sheriffs and others who  

were in his room, and stated that the question would soon be tried, when it would be  

seen how far he was justified. He considered the whole as a private matter between  

him and the Government, who gave him a carte blanche to do his worst, which he had  

done.  

Alderman Combe, as one of the committing magistrates, was very active in his  

endeavours to trace Bellingham's connexions and habits, and for that purpose went to  

the house of a respect able woman where he lodged in New Millman Street, but could  

learn from her nothing that indicated any conspiracy with others. His landlady  

represented him as a quiet inoffensive man, though at times rather eccentric, which  

she instanced by observing that when he had lodged there only three weeks, at 10s 6d  

per week, she was surprised to find that he had given her servant-maid half-a-guinea  

for herself. On being told the deed which he had perpetrated, she said that was  

impossible, for that she had met him a few minutes before the stated time, when he  

told her that he had just been to buy a prayer-book. She represented him as of a  

religious turn of mind. 

In jail the prisoner requested to have pen, ink and paper, to write some letters  

to his friends, and he accordingly wrote one to his family at Liverpool, which was  

delivered open to Mr Newman. The following was sent to Mrs Roberts, No 9 New  

Millman Street, the lady at whose house he lodged. It will serve to show the state of  

his mind in the miserable situation to which he had reduced himself: 

Tuesday morning, Old Bailey  

DEAR MADAM-Yesterday midnight I was escorted to this neighbourhood by  

a noble troop of Light Horse, and delivered into the care of Mr Newman (by Mr  

Taylor, the magistrate and M.P.) as a state prisoner of the first class. For eight years I  

have never found my mind so tranquil as since this melancholy but necessary  

catastrophe, as the merits or demerits of my peculiar case must be regularly unfolded  

in a criminal court of justice to ascertain the guilty party, by a jury of my country. I  

have to request the favour of you to send me three or four shirts, some cravats,  

handkerchiefs, night-caps, stockings, &c, out of my drawers, together with comb,  

soap, tooth-brush, with any other trifle that presents itself which you think I may have  

occasion for, and inclose them in my leather trunk, and the key please to send sealed,  

per bearer; also my great-coat, flannel gown, and black waistcoat: which will much  

oblige,  

'Dear madam, your very obedient servant,  

'JOHN BELLINGHAM. 

'To the above please to add the prayer-books.' 

Soon after two o'clock the wretched prisoner ate a hearty dinner, and requested  

that in future he might dine at about the same hour, and after passing the rest of the  

day in a tranquil manner, he retired to bed at twelve and slept until seven the next  

morning, being attended by two persons during the night. He breakfasted at about nine  

o'clock, and appeared perfectly composed, and on the sheriffs revisiting him,  

accompanied by several gentlemen, he was found to be unaltered in his demeanour.  

On his being spoken to on the subject of his trial, he conversed with apparent  

indifference, but on the melancholy fact of Mr Perceval's murder being alluded to, he  

became less tranquil, persisted in vindicating the act, and said that when his trial came  

on before a jury of his countrymen, it would be for them to determine how far a  

minister of the crown was justified in refusing justice to an injured individual. He  

declared that if he had a thousand lives to lose, he would have risked them in the  

pursuit of justice in the same way. He spoke of the result of his trial with the utmost  

confidence, and on his being asked whether he had any commands to his wife at  

Liverpool, he declared that he had not, and that in a day or two he should join her in  

that city. 

On the 15th of May, 1812, four days after the death of Mr Perceval, the trial of  

the prisoner came on at the Old Bailey. The judges at ten o'clock took their seats on  

each side of the Lord Mayor; and the recorder, the Duke of Clarence, the Marquis  

Wellesley and almost all the aldermen of the City of London occupied the bench. The  

court was crowded to excess, and no distinction of rank was observed, so that  

Members of the House of Commons were forced to mingle in the throng. There were  

also present a great number of ladies, all led by the most intense curiosity to behold  

the assassin, and to hear what he might urge in defence or in palliation of his atrocious  

act. 

At length Bellingham appeared, and advanced to the bar with a firm step, and  

quite undismayed. He bowed to the Court most respectfully, and even gracefully; and  

it is impossible to describe the impression which his appearance, accompanied by this  

unexpected fortitude, produced. He was dressed in a light brown surtout coat and  

striped yellow waistcoat; his hair plainly dressed, and without powder. 

Before the prisoner was called on regularly to plead, Mr Alley, his counsel,  

made application to have the trial postponed, for the purpose of procuring proofs of  

his client's insanity, which was alleged in two affidavits he held: he said that he had  

no doubt, if time were allowed, that the prisoner could be proved to be insane. Mr  

Alley was here interrupted by the court, who refused to hear him until the prisoner  

had first pleaded. 

The indictment was then read, and the usual question, 'Guilty, or not guilty?'  

was put to Bellingham, when he addressed the court: 'My lords-Before I can plead to  

this indictment, I must state, in justice to myself, that by hurrying on my trial I am  

placed in a most remarkable situation. It so happens that my prosecutors are actually  

the witnesses against me. All the documents on which alone I could rest my defence  

have been taken from me and are now in possession of the Crown. It is only two days  

since I was told to prepare for my defence, and when I asked for my papers, I was told  

they could not be given up. It is therefore, my lords, rendered utterly impossible for  

me to go into my justification, and under the circumstances in which I find myself, a  

trial is absolutely useless. The papers are to be given to me after the trial, but how can  

that avail me for my defence? I am, therefore, not ready for my trial.' 

The Attorney-General was proceeding to explain to the court what had been  

done with reference to the prisoner's papers, when Chief Justice Mansfield interrupted  

him, observing, it was necessary the prisoner should first plead. 

The prisoner was again interrogated, when he pleaded 'Not guilty' to both  

counts of the indictment. 

The Attorney-General-'I will now answer what has fallen from the prisoner.  

He says that he has been denied access to his papers. It is true that Government, for  

the purposes of justice, has retained them-but it is also true that he has been informed  

that if he asked for them at the time of his trial they should be ready, and any of them,  

which he might think useful to his defence, should be given to him: and in the  

meantime, if he considered it necessary, he might have copies of them. This we are  

ready to verify on oath.' 

The clerk of the arraigns, Mr Shelton, then read the indictment, which charged  

the prisoner in the usual way with the murder of the Right Hon Spencer Perceval, with  

which he was also charged on the coroner's inquisition. 

Mr Abbott having opened the case, the Attorney-General addressed the jury.  

He said that a lamentable and painful task devolved upon him to state to the jury the  

circumstances of this horrid murder-a crime perpetrated on a man whose whole life,  

he should have thought, would have guarded and protected him against such an attack,  

who, he was sure, if enough of life had been left him to see by whose hand he had  

fallen, would have spent his last moment in uttering a prayer for the forgiveness of his  

murderer. But It was not a time for him to dwell on the public loss, which had been  

sustained-its brightest ornament had been torn from the country, but the country had  

done justice to his memory. These were not considerations, however, by which they  

must be swayed. It was not revenge, nor was it resentment, that ought to have any  

influence on their consideration of the question. They were to satisfy public justice-to  

take care, by their verdict, that the public should not be exposed to such horrid crimes.  

With respect to the prisoner, he knew nothing, nor did he know how his life had been  

spent, except so far as related to the circumstances of the case. He had been in  

business and had acted as a merchant, in the course of which he had shown himself a  

man of sound understanding in every act which he performed; and he had not only  

conducted his own affairs with understanding, but he had been selected by other  

persons to manage theirs. 

Having stated the main facts of the case as we have already detailed them, he  

entreated the jury to consider it not as the murder of so eminent a person, but as the  

murder of a common individual-to suppose the meanest subject to have suffered as  

Mr Perceval had suffered, and to return their verdict as they would upon that case.  

Was he or was he not guilty? To that point they must direct their attention, and he  

knew of no reason to cause even a doubt. But what remained? This only-the attempt  

which had been made that day to put off the trial of the prisoner, on the ground of his  

being fit for this or any other crime, as he was afflicted with insanity. Let them  

consider this a little. The prisoner was a man conducting himself like others in all the  

ordinary circumstances of life-who carried on business, none of his family or friends  

interfering-no pretence being suggested that he was unable to superintend his own  

affairs. What clearer proofs, then, could be given to show, contrary to the defence set  

up, that he was not what the law called non compos mentis-that he was an  

accountable being? 

He knew the cases where the plea of insanity would be received-where for  

instance a murder was committed by a person whose mental infirmity might be  

considered as very nearly the absence of all mind. Against their defence there was no  

argument. But he was this day to learn whether the wickedness of the act which the  

prisoner was called on to answer was to be considered an excuse for its perpetration.  

Travelling through his whole life, what ground could they adduce for such a plea? His  

every act appeared rational except one, and that was only irrational, because it was so  

horrid that the imagination of man could not fancy to itself the existence of so  

atrocious a deed. But how far must this argument go? It must arrive at this  

conclusion-that every act of gross and unusual atrocity would carry its defence along  

with it, that every act of peculiar horror would have within itself a certain defence, for  

the barbarity of the deed would be considered as a proof that the mind which directed  

it was not in a state of sufficient security to judge whether the action was right or  

wrong. If the mind possessed the power of forming that judgement, the prisoner was  

criminally accountable for the act. A man might be infirm in mind, insufficient to  

dispose of his property or to judge of the claims of his respective relatives, and if he  

were in that situation, the management of his affairs might be taken from him and  

vested in trustees: but such a man was not discharged from criminal acts because he  

could not transact civil business. Many cases had occurred within his memory in  

courts of law, in which it was proved that a person in many respects had evinced  

symptoms of insanity up to a certain time; but the question then was, whether that  

insanity was of such a description as precluded or permitted the knowledge of right or  

wrong? In every one of the cases which recurred to his memory, though a certain  

degree of madness was proved, still as the parties seemed to have sufficient sense to  

distinguish right from wrong at the time of the perpetration of the acts charged against  

them, they were held to be criminally accountable. Here there was no deficiency of  

understanding whatever. No opinion of others to that effect was adduced: on the  

contrary, he was entrusted with the management of his own and others' affairs. the  

question was, whether at the time the murder was perpetrated he possessed sufficient  

sense to distinguish between right and wrong? What conclusion could they draw in  

favour of the idea which had been suggested? Let them take from their recollection  

the frightful nature of the act with the commission of which he was charged, let them  

take from it its accumulated horrors, and time prisoner stood before them in a state of  

sanity, and fully accountable for the act, of which, he thought, little doubt could be  

entertained he had been guilty. 

The learned gentleman concluded by expressing his satisfaction at the fact that  

the prisoner stood alone on that occasion, that he was unconnected with, and unaided  

and uninfluenced by, any other person or party in the country, and that this deed could  

not therefore be attributed to any but the personal feelings which he entertained  

towards His Majesty's Government. On him, and on him only, did the disgrace which  

he had excited rest, and the character of the country was entirely free from any  

participation in it. 

The first witness called on time part of the Crown was: 

Mr William Smith (M.P. for Norwich) who, being sworn, deposed as follows: 

He was on his way to attend the House of Commons on the evening of  

Monday the 11th of May, and was going through the lobby towards the door of the  

house, when he heard the report of a pistol, which appeared to have been fired close to  

the entrance door of the lobby. Immediately on the report, he turned towards the place  

from whence the noise appeared to proceed, and observed a tumult and probably a  

dozen or more persons about the spot. Almost in the same instant he saw a person  

rush hastily from among the crowd, and heard several voices cry out, 'Shut the doors- 

let no one escape.' The person came towards him from the crowd, looking first one  

way, then another, rather like one seeking for shelter than a person wounded. But  

taking two or three steps towards the witness, he reeled by him and almost  

instantaneously fell on the floor with his face downward, Before he fell, witness heard  

him cry, though not very distinctly, and in what he uttered, he heard the word  

'murder!' or something very like it. When he first fell, witness thought that he might  

have been slightly wounded, and expected to see him make an effort to rise. But  

gazing on him for a few moments, he observed that he did not stir at all, and he,  

therefore, immediately stooped down to raise him front the ground, requesting the  

assistance of a gentleman close by him for the purpose. As soon as they had turned his  

face upwards, and not till then, he found that it was Mr Perceval. They then took him  

into their arms, and carried him into the office of the Speaker's secretary, where they  

seated themselves on the table, with Mr Perceval between them, also sitting on the  

table, and resting on their arms. His face was now perfectly pale, the blood issuing in  

small quantities from each corner of his mouth, and probably in two or three minutes  

from the firing of the pistol all signs of life had ceased. The eyes of the unfortunate  

gentleman were open, but he did not appear to know witness, nor to take any notice of  

any person about him, nor did he utter the least articulate sound from the moment he  

fell. A few convulsive sobs, which lasted perhaps three or four moments, together  

with a scarcely perceptible pulse, were the only signs of life which appeared then, and  

those continued but a very short time longer. When witness felt Mr Perceval's pulse  

for the last time, just before Mr Lynn, the surgeon, arrived, it appeared to him that he  

was quite dead. Witness remained supporting the body until it was conveyed into the  

Speaker's house, but he was unable to give any account of what passed in the lobby. 

Mr William Lynn, a surgeon in Great George Street, de posed that he was  

called to the deceased, hut on his arrival he was quite dead. There was blood upon his  

white waistcoat and shirt, and upon his examining the body, he found that there was  

an opening in the skin, he probed the wound three inches down wards, and entertained  

no doubt that the pistol-ball passed into the heart, and was the cause of death. 

Mr Henry Burgess, a solicitor who was in the lobby, stated, that after having  

seen Mr Perceval fall, as had been already described, he heard someone exclaim,  

'That's the man!' and saw a hand pointing towards the bench by the fire-place which is  

on one side of the lobby, he immediately went over to the bench and saw the prisoner  

at the bar sitting on it in great agitation. There were one or two persons by him. He  

looked at his hands, and saw his left hand on the bench; and near or under his other  

hand he saw a pistol, which he took, and asked the prisoner what had induced him to  

do such a deed? He replied, 'Want of redress of grievances and refusal by  

government', or words to that effect. Witness then said to the prisoner, 'You have  

another pistol?' he replied, 'Yes.' Witness asked if it was loaded, to which he answered  

in the affirmative. Witness then saw some person take the other pistol from his  

person. The pistol which witness took from the prisoner was warm, and appeared as if  

it had been recently discharged. The lock was down and the pan open. (Here the pistol  

was produced, and recognized by the witness.) He then stated, that he put his hand  

into the right waist coat-pocket of the prisoner, from which he took a small penknife  

and a pencil, and from his left-hand waistcoat-pocket he took a bunch of keys and  

some money. The prisoner was detained in custody, and examined shortly afterwards  

above stairs in the House of Commons before the magistrates. Witness related in the  

presence of the prisoner, on that occasion, the facts which he had now detailed. When  

he had concluded, the prisoner made an observation to this effect, as well as he could  

recollect. 'I wish to correct Mr Burgess' statement in one point; but I believe he is  

perfectly correct in every other. Instead of my hand being, as Mr Burgess stated, upon  

or near the pistol, I think he took it from my hand or upon it.' 

James Taylor, a tailor, at No 11 North Place, Gray's Inn Lane, deposed that he  

had been employed by the prisoner to repair some clothes. He was afterwards in  

Guildford Street, when the prisoner called him, and took him to his lodgings in  

Millman Street, and there directed him to put a side-pocket into a coat, which he gave  

him, of a particular length which he pointed out. He completed the job on the same  

night, and carried the coat home. 

Mr John Morris stated that he often attended in the gallery appropriated for  

strangers, and went down to the House on Monday, the 11th of May, for that purpose.  

he passed into the lobby about the hour of five in the afternoon. He observed the  

prisoner at the bar standing in the lobby near the outer door: he was standing beside  

that part of the door which is generally closed, it was a double door, and one half was  

usually closed, within which half tile prisoner was standing, and anyone to have  

entered the lobby must have passed him at unit's length. He observed the prisoner as if  

watching for somebody coming, and he appeared to look anxiously towards the door.  

As well as the witness recollected, the prisoner had his right hand within the left  

breast of his coat. Witness passed on to the staircase of the gallery, and almost  

immediately after he got into the upper lobby, he heard the report of a pistol, and  

found soon after that it was connected with the fatal event which occurred on that  

evening. He had frequently seen the prisoner before in the gallery, where gentlemen  

who report the parliamentary proceedings resorted, and about the passages of the  

House of Commons. 

John Vickery, a Bow Street officer, said that he went on Monday afternoon to  

New Millman Street, to the lodgings of the prisoner, which he searched, and found, in  

the bedroom upstairs, a pair of pistol-bags, and in the same drawer a small powder- 

flask and some powder in a small paper, a box with some bullets, and some small  

flints wrapped in paper. There was also a pistol-key to unscrew the pistol for the  

purpose of loading, and some sand-paper and a pistol-mould. The witness on  

comparing e bullet found in the loaded pistol with the mould, and the screw with the  

pistols, found them all to correspond. 

Mr Vincent George Dowling was next called. He stated that he was in the  

gallery on the afternoon in question, and ran down into the lobby on hearing the report  

of a pistol. He saw the prisoner at the bar sitting on a stool, and going to him, he  

seized him and began to search his person. he took from his left-hand small-clothes  

pocket a small pistol, which he produced and which, on his examining it, he found to  

be loaded with powder and ball. It was primed as well as loaded. The pistol which had  

been discharged and that which he took from the prisoner were in his belief a brace:  

they were of the same size and bore, and were marked with the same maker's name.  

The witness had seen the prisoner several times before in the gallery and in the  

avenues of the house, and to the best of his recollection the last the he saw him was  

six or seven days before the death of Mr Perceval, He was frequently in the gallery  

during the debates, and upon several occasions entered into conversation with the  

witness. He had often asked for information as to the names of the gentlemen  

speaking, and also as to the persons of the members of His Majesty's Government. 

Other witnesses from Newgate produced tile coat worn by the prisoner at the  

tine of his apprehension, amid it was identified by Taylor as the same one which he  

had put the side-pocket. 

Lord Chief Justice Mansfield then addressed the prisoner, and told him, that  

the case on the part of the Crown being now gone through, the period was come for  

him to make any defence he might wish to offer. 

The prisoner asked whether his counsel had nothing to urge in his defence? 

Mr Alley informed him that his counsel were not entitled to speak. 

The prisoner then said that the documents and papers necessary to his defence  

had been taken out of his pocket, and had not since been restored to him. 

Mr Garrow said that it was the intention of the counsel for the Crown to  

restore him his papers, having first proved them to be the same which were taken  

from him, and that they had not suffered any subtraction: his solicitor already had  

copies of them. 

General Gascoigne and Mr Hume (M.P. for Weymouth) proved that the papers  

were those which had been taken from the person of the prisoner, and that they had  

been in their custody ever since, and had suffered no subtraction. 

The papers were then handed to the prisoner, who proceeded to arrange and  

examine them. 

The prisoner, who had been hitherto sitting, now rose and, bowing respectfully  

to the court and jury, went into his defence, in a firm tone of voice, and without any  

appearance of embarrassment. He spoke nearly to the following effect: 

'I feel great personal obligation to the Attorney-General for the objection  

which he has made to the plea of insanity. I think it is far more fortunate that such a  

plea as that should have been unfounded, than that it should have existed in fact. I am  

obliged to my counsel, however, for having thus endeavoured to consult my interest,  

as I am convinced the attempt has arisen from the kindest motives. That I am or have  

been insane is a circumstance of which I am not apprised, except in the single instance  

of my having been confined in Russia: how far that may be considered as affecting  

my present situation, it is not for me to determine. This is the first time that I have  

ever spoken in public in this way. I feel my own incompetency, but I trust you will  

attend to the substance, rather than to the manner, of my investigating the truth of an  

affair which has occasioned my presence at this bar. 

'I beg to assure you that the crime which I have committed has arisen from  

compulsion rather than from any hostility to the man whom it has been my fate to  

destroy. Considering the amiable character and universally admitted virtues of Mr  

Perceval, I feel, if I could murder him in a cool and unjustifiable manner, I should not  

deserve to live another moment in this world. Conscious, however, that I shall be able  

to justify everything which I have done, I feel some degree of confidence in meeting  

the storm which assails me, and shall now proceed to unfold a catalogue of  

circumstances which, while they harrow up my own soul, will, I am sure, tend to the  

extenuation of my conduct in this honourable court. This, as has already been  

candidly stated by the Attorney-General, is the first instance in which the slightest  

imputation has been cast upon my moral character. Until this fatal catastrophe, which  

no one can more heartily regret than I do, not excepting even the family of Mr  

Perceval himself, I have stood alike pure in the minds of those who have known me,  

and in the judgement of my own heart. I hope I see this affair in the true light. 

'For eight years, gentlemen of the jury, have I been exposed to all the miseries  

which it is possible for human nature to endure. Driven almost to despair, I sought for  

redress in vain. For this affair I had the carte blanche of government, as I will prove  

by the most incontestible evidence, namely, the writing of the Secretary of State  

himself. I come before you under peculiar disadvantages. Many of my most material  

papers are now at Liver pool, for which I have written; but I have been called upon  

my trial before it was possible to obtain an answer to my letter. Without witnesses,  

therefore, and in the absence of many papers necessary to my justification, I am sure  

you will admit I have just grounds for claiming some indulgence. I must state that  

after my voyage to Archangel, I transmitted a petition to his royal highness the Prince  

Regent, through Mr Windle, my solicitor, and in consequence of there being no reply  

I came to London to see the result. Surprised at the delay, and conceiving that the  

interests of my country were at stake, I considered this step as essential, as well for  

the assertion of my own right as for the vindication of the national honour. I waited  

upon Colonel MacMahon, who stated that my petition had been received, but, owing  

to some accident, had been mislaid. Under these circumstances, I drew out another  

account of the particulars of the Russian affair, and this may be considered the  

commencement of that train of events which led to the afflicting and unhappy fate of  

Mr Perceval.' 

The prisoner then read various documents containing the statement of the  

whole of his affairs in Russia. In the course of narrating these hardships, he took  

occasion to explain several points, adverting with great feeling to the unhappy  

situation in which he was placed, from the circumstance of his having been lately  

married to his wife, then about twenty years of age, with an infant at her breast, and  

who had been waiting for him at St Petersburgh, in order that she might accompany  

him to England, a prey to all those anxieties which the unexpected and cruel  

incarceration of her husband, without any just grounds, was calculated to excite. (He  

was here much affected.) He also de scribed his feelings at a subsequent period, when  

his wife, from an anxiety to reach her native country (England) when in a state of  

pregnancy, and looking to the improbability of his liberation, was obliged to quit  

Petersburgh unprotected, and under take the voyage at the peril of her life, while Lord  

L. Gower and Sir S. Sharp suffered him to remain in a situation worse than death. 'My  

God! my God!' he exclaimed, 'what heart could bear such excruciating tortures,  

without bursting with indignation at conduct so diametrically opposite to justice and  

to humanity. I appeal to you, gentlemen of the jury, as men-I appeal to you as  

brothers-I appeal to you as Christians --whether, under such circumstances of  

persecution, it was possible to regard the actions of the ambassador and consul of my  

own country with any other feelings but those of detestation and horror! In using  

language thus strong, I feel that I commit an error; yet does my heart tell me, that  

towards men who lent themselves thus to bolster up the basest acts of persecution,  

there are no observations, however strong, which the strict justice of the case would  

not excuse my using. Had I been so fortunate as to have met Lord Leveson Gower  

instead of that truly amiable and highly lamented individual, Mr Perceval, he is the  

man who should have received the ball!' 

Bellingham then went on to recount at great length the history of his various  

attempts to obtain satisfaction from the Government, which have already been  

described, ending with his letter to the Bow Street magistrates quoted above. 

'In the course of two days,' he continued, 'I called again at Bow Street for an  

answer to this letter, when I received a little memorandum, in Mr Reid's writing, in  

which he states that he cannot interfere in my affairs, and that he had felt it his duty to  

communicate the contents of my packet to the Secretary of State. Had he done  

otherwise he would have been extremely reprehensible, as events have turned out so  

calamitously-events which go to my heart to allude to. (Much affected.) At last, in  

reply to letter of the 13th of April, 1 received a final and direct answer, which at once  

convinced me that I had no reason to expect any adjustment whatever of those claims  

which I had on His Majesty's government, for my criminal detention in Russia. 

'After this, on personal application at the office of the Secretary f State, and  

intimating my intention to take justice in my own hand, I was told, by the mouth of  

Mr Hill, that I was at liberty to take such measures as I thought proper. Who then is to  

be reprobated in this case-those who were regardless of every feeling of honour and  

of justice, or him who, spurred on by injury and neglect, and with a due notice of his  

intentions, pursued the only course likely to lead to a satisfactory termination of  

calamities which had weighed him down to the lowest ebb of misery? I will now only  

mention a few observations by way of defence. You have before you all the  

particulars of this melancholy transaction. Believe me, gentlemen, the rashness of  

which I have been guilty has not been dictated by any personal animosity to Mr  

Perceval, rather than injure whom from private or malicious motives I would suffer  

my limbs to be cut from my body. (Here the prisoner seemed again much agitated.) 

'If, whenever I am called before the tribunal of God, I can appear with as clear  

a conscience as I now possess in regard to the alleged charge of the wilful murder of  

the unfortunate gentleman, the investigation of whose death has occupied your  

attention, it would be happy for me, as essentially securing to me eternal salvation;  

but that is impossible. That my arm has been the means of his melancholy and  

lamented exit, I am ready to allow. But to constitute murder, it must clearly and  

absolutely be proved to have arisen from malice prepense and with a malicious  

design, as I have no doubt the learned judge will shortly lay down, in explaining the  

law on the subject. If such is the case, I am guilty: if not, I look forward with  

confidence to your acquittal. 

'That the contrary is the case has been most clearly and irrefutably proved. No  

doubt can rest upon your minds, as my uniform and undeviating object has been an  

endeavour to obtain justice, according to law, for a series of the most long-continued  

and unmerited sufferings that were ever submitted to a court of law, without having  

been guilty of any other crime than an appeal for redress for a most flagrant injury  

offered to my sovereign and my country, wherein my liberty and property have fallen  

a sacrifice for the continued period of eight years, to the total ruin of myself and  

family (with authenticated documents of the truth of the allegations), merely because  

it was Mr Perceval's plea sure that justice should not be granted, sheltering himself  

with the idea of there being no alternative remaining, as my petition to parliament for  

redress could not be brought (as having a pecuniary tendency) without the sanction of  

His Majesty's ministers, and that he was determined to oppose my claim, by trampling  

both on law and right. 

'Gentlemen, where a man has so strong and serious a criminal case to bring  

forward as mine has been, the nature of which was purely national, it is the bounden  

duty of Government to attend to it; for justice is a matter of right and not of valour.  

And when a minister is so unprincipled and presumptuous at any time, but especially  

in a case of such urgent necessity, to set himself above both the sovereign and the  

laws, as has been the case with Mr Perceval, he must do it at his personal risk; for by  

the law he cannot be protected. 

'Gentlemen, if this is not fact, the mere will of a minister would be law: it  

would be this thing today and the other thing tomorrow, as either interest or caprice  

might dictate. What would become of our liberties? Where would be the purity and  

the impartiality of the justice we so much boast of? The Government's non-attendance  

to the dictates of justice is solely to be attributed the melancholy catastrophe of the  

unfortunate gentleman, as any malicious intention to his injury was the most remote  

from my heart. Justice, and justice only, was my object, which Government uniformly  

objected to grant. The distress it reduced me to, drove me to despair in consequence,  

and, purely for the purpose of having this singular affair legally investigated, I gave  

notice at the public office, Bow Street, requesting the magistrates to acquaint His  

Majesty's ministers, that if they persisted in refusing justice, or even to permit me to  

bring my just petition into parliament for redress, I should be under the imperious  

necessity of executing justice myself, solely for the purpose of ascertaining, through a  

criminal court, whether His Majesty's ministers have the power to refuse justice to a  

well-authenticated and irrefutable act of oppression, committed by the consul and  

ambassador abroad, whereby my sovereign's and country's honour were materially  

tarnished, by my person endeavouring to be made the stalking-horse of justification,  

to one of the greatest insults that could be offered to the crown. But in order to avoid  

so reluctant and abhorrent an alternative, I hoped to be allowed to bring my petition to  

the House of Commons-or that they would do what was right and proper themselves.  

On my return from Russia, I brought most serious charges to the privy council, both  

against Sir Stephen Shairp and Lord Granville Leveson Gower, when the affair was  

determined to be purely national, and consequently it was the duty of His Majesty's  

ministers to arrange it by acting on the resolution of the council. Suppose, for  

instance, the charge I brought could have been proved to be erroneous, should not I  

have been called to a severe account for my conduct? But, being true, ought not I to  

have been redressed? 

'It is a melancholy fact, that the warping of justice, including all the various  

ramifications in which it operates, occasions more misery in the world, in a immoral  

sense, than all the acts of God in a physical one, with which he punishes mankind for  

their transgressions-a confirmation of which, the single, but strong, instance before  

you is one remarkable proof. 

'If a poor unfortunate man stops another upon the highway, and robs him of  

but a few shillings, he may be called upon to forfeit his life. But I have been robbed of  

my liberty for years, ill-treated beyond precedent, torn from my wife and family,  

bereaved of all my property to make good the consequences of such irregularities,  

deprived and bereaved of everything that makes life valuable, and then called upon to  

forfeit it, because Mr Perceval has been pleased to patronize iniquity that ought to  

have been punished, for the sake of a vote or two in the House of Commons, with,  

perhaps, a similar good turn elsewhere. 

'Is there, gentlemen, any comparison between the enormity of these two  

offenders? No more than a mite to a mountain. Yet the one is carried to the gallows,  

while the other stalks in security, fancying himself beyond the reach of law or justice:  

the most honest man suffers, while the other goes forward in triumph to new and more  

extended enormities. 

'We have had a recent and striking instance of some unfortunate men who  

have been called upon to pay their lives as the forfeit of their allegiance, in  

endeavouring to mitigate the rigours of a prison. But, gentlemen, where is the  

proportion between the crimes for which they suffered, and what the Government has  

been guilty of, in withholding its protection from me? Even in a Crown case, after the  

years of sufferings, I have been called upon to sacrifice all my property and the  

welfare of my family, to bolster up the iniquities of the Crown. And then am  

prosecuted for my life, because I have taken the only possible alternative to bring the  

affair to a public investigation, for the purpose of being enabled to return to the bosom  

of my family with some degree of comfort and honour. Every man within the sound  

of my voice must feel for my situation; but by you, gentle men of the jury, it must be  

felt in a peculiar degree, who are husbands and fathers, and can fancy yourselves in  

my situation. I trust that this serious lesson will operate as a warning to all future  

ministers, and lead them to do the thing that is right, as an unerring rule of conduct,  

for, if the superior classes were more correct in their proceedings, the extensive  

ramifications of evil would, in a great measure, be hemmed up. A notable proof of the  

fact is, that this court would never have been troubled with the case before it, had their  

conduct been guided by these principles. 

'I have now occupied the attention of the court for a period much longer than I  

intended, yet I trust they will consider the awfulness of my situation to be a sufficient  

ground for a trespass which, under other circumstances, would be inexcusable. Sooner  

than suffer what I have suffered for the last eight years, how ever, I should consider  

five hundred deaths, if it were possible for human nature to endure them, a fate far  

more preferable. Lost so long to all the endearments of my family, bereaved of all the  

blessings of life, and deprived of its greatest sweet, liberty, as the weary traveller, who  

has long been pelted by the pitiless storm, welcomes the much desired inn, I shall  

receive death as the relief of all my sorrows. I shall not occupy your attention longer,  

but, relying on the justice of God, and submitting myself to the dictates of your  

conscience, I submit to the fiat of my fate, firmly anticipating an acquittal from a  

charge so abhorrent to every feeling of my soul.' 

Here the prisoner bowed, and his counsel immediately proceeded to call the witnesses  

for the defence. 

Anne Billet, who appeared under the strongest impressions of grief, being  

sworn, deposed that she lived in the county of Southampton: she came to London in  

consequence of having read in the newspapers of the prisoner having been  

apprehended for the murder of Mr Perceval. She was induced to come to town, from a  

conviction that she knew more of him than any other friend. She knew him from a  

child. He resided latterly at Liverpool, from whence he came at Christmas last. She  

knew him to be a merchant. His father died insane in Titchfield Street, Oxford Road.  

She firmly believed that for the last three or four years the prisoner was in a state of  

derangement, respecting the business which he had been pursuing. She had not seen  

him for twelve months until the present moment. She always thought him deranged  

when his Russian affairs were the subject of conversation. 

When cross-examined by Mr Garrow, she deposed that, when in London with  

the prisoner about twelve months since, he was going to different government offices  

to seek redress of his grievances. He was then in a state of derangement, as he had  

been ever since his return from Russia. There was one instance which occurred at the  

period to which she was alluding, which strongly confirmed her in the opinion of his  

insanity. About Christmas he told his wife and witness, that now he was come from  

Russia he had realized more than 100,000L., with which he intended to buy an estate  

in the west of England and to have a house in London. He admitted that he had not got  

the money, but said it was the same as if he had, for he had gained his cause in Russia  

and our government would make good all the loss he had sustained. He repeatedly  

said to her and to his wife that this was assuredly the fact. Upon one occasion he took  

Mrs Bellingham and the witness to the Secretary of State's office, where they saw Mr  

Smith, who said if he had not ladies with him he would not have come to him at all.  

The prisoner told Mr Smith, that the reason why he brought them was to convince  

them that his claims were just, and that he would very shortly receive the money. Mr  

Smith told him he could say nothing upon this subject: he had already sent him a letter  

alleging that he had nothing to expect. The prisoner then requested Mr Smith would  

answer him one question-'My friends say I am out of my senses. Is it your opinion  

that I am so?' Mr Smith said it was a very delicate question, and one he did not wish  

to answer. Having then departed, when they got into the carriage which waited for  

them, he took hold of his wife's hand and said, 'I hope, now, my dear, you are  

convinced all will now end as we wish.' Since that period she knew that he had been  

pursuing his object alone, his wife remaining at Liverpool. 

Other witnesses were called, who deposed to like facts and to their belief in  

the insanity of the prisoner, but Lord Chief Justice Mansfield having summed up the  

case, the jury, after a consultation of two minutes and a half in the box, expressed a  

wish to retire, and an officer of the court being sworn, accompanied them to the jury- 

room. As they passed out, the prisoner regarded them separately with a look of  

mingled confidence and complacency. They were absent fourteen minutes, and, on  

their return into court, their countenances, acting as indices to their minds, at once  

unfolded the determination to which they had come. The prisoner again directed his  

attention to them in the same manner as before. 

The names being called over, and the verdict asked for in the usual form, the  

foreman in a faltering voice, announced the fatal decision of-Guilty. 

The prisoner's countenance here indicated surprise, unmixed, however, with  

any demonstrations of that concern which the awfulness of his situation was  

calculated to produce. 

The Recorder then passed the awful sentence of death on the prisoner in the  

most feeling manner, and he was ordered for execution on the following Monday, his  

body to be anatomized. He received the sentence without any emotion. 

From the time of his condemnation the unfortunate convict was fed upon  

bread and water. All means of suicide were removed, and he was not allowed to be  

shaved-a prohibition which gave him much concern, as he feared he should not  

appear as a gentleman. He was visited by the ordinary on Saturday, and some  

religious gentlemen called on him on Sunday, with whose conversation he seemed  

greatly pleased. He appeared naturally depressed by his situation; but persisted in a  

resolute denial of his guilt. He frequently said that he had prepared himself to go to  

his Father, and that he should be pleased when the hour came. 

Being informed by Mr Newman that two gentlemen from Liverpool had  

called, and left word that his wife and children would be provided for, he seemed but  

little affected; but, having requested pen, ink and paper, he wrote the following letter  

to his wife:- 

MY BLESSED MARY,-  

It rejoiced me beyond measure to hear you are likely to be well provided for. I  

am sure the public at large will participate in, and mitigate, your sorrows; I assure  

you, my love, my sincerest endeavours have ever been directed to your welfare. As  

we shall not meet any more in this world, I sincerely hope we shall do so in the world  

to come. My blessing to the boys, with kind remembrance to Miss Stephens, for  

whom I have the greatest regard, in consequence of her uniform affection for them.  

With the purest intentions, it has always been my misfortune to be thwarted,  

misrepresented and ill-used in life; but however, we feel a happy prospect of  

compensation in a speedy translation to life eternal. It's not possible to be more calm  

or placid than I feel, and nine hours more will waft me to those happy shores where  

bliss is without alloy.  

Yours ever affectionate,  

JOHN BELLINGHAM.  

That the unfortunate man was afflicted with a strange malady, which  

occasionally rendered him incapable of correct conclusions, must be evident from the  

following note, which he wrote the night preceding his execution: 'I lost my suit  

solely through the improper conduct of my attorney and counsel, Mr Alley, in not  

bringing my witnesses forward (of whom there were more an twenty): in  

consequence, the judge took advantage of the circumstance, and I went on the defence  

without having brought forward a single friend-otherwise I must inevitably have been  

acquitted.' 

On the Monday morning, at about six o'clock, he rose and dressed himself  

with great composure, and read for half-an-hour in the Prayer Book. Dr Ford being  

then announced, the prisoner shook him most cordially by the hand, and left his cell  

for the room allotted for the condemned criminals. He repeated the declaration which  

he had frequently before made, that his mind was perfectly calm and composed and  

that he was fully prepared to meet his fate with resignation. After a few minutes spent  

in prayer, the sacrament was administered to him, and during time whole of the  

ceremony he seemed to be deeply impressed with the truths of the Christian religion,  

and repeatedly uttered some pious ejaculations. After the religious ceremony was  

ended, the prisoner was informed that the sheriffs were ready. He answered in a firm  

tone of voice, 'I am perfectly ready also.' 

The executioner then proceeded to fasten his wrists together, and the prisoner  

turned up the sleeves of his coat, and clasped his hands together, presenting them to  

the man who held the cord, and said, 'So.' When they were fastened, he desired his  

attendants to pull down his sleeves so as to cover the cord. The officer then proceeded  

to secure his arms behind him. When the man had finished, he moved his hand  

upwards, as if to ascertain whether he could reach his neck, and asked whether they  

thought his arms were sufficiently fastened, saying that he might struggle, and that he  

wished to be so secured as to prevent any inconvenience arising from it. He was  

answered that the cord was quite secure, but he requested that it might be tightened a  

little, which was accordingly done. During the whole of the awful scene he appeared  

perfectly composed and collected: his voice never faltered, but just before he left the  

room to proceed to the place of execution, he stooped down his head and appeared to  

wipe away a tear. He was then conducted by the Lord Mayor, sheriffs, under-sheriffs  

and officers (Dr Ford walking with him) from the room, in which he had remained  

from the time his irons were taken off; through the press-yard and time prison to the  

fatal spot, before the Debtors' door at Newgate. 

He ascended the scaffold with rather a light step, a cheerful countenance, and a  

confident, a calm, but not an exulting air. He looked about him a little, lightly and  

rapidly, which seems to have been his usual manner and gesture, but made no remark. 

Before the cap was put over his face, Dr Ford asked if he had any last  

communication to make, or anything particular to say. He was again proceeding to  

talk about Russia and his family, when Dr Ford stopped him, calling his attention to  

the eternity into which he was entering, and praying. Bellingham prayed also. The  

clergyman then asked him how he felt, and he answered calmly and collectedly, that  

'he thanked God for having enabled him to meet his fate with so much fortitude and  

resignation.' When the executioner proceeded to put the cap over his face, Bellingham  

objected to it, and expressed a strong wish that the business could be done without it;  

but Dr Ford said that was not to be dispensed with. While the cap was being fastened  

on, it being tied round the lower part of the face by the prisoner's neckerchief, and just  

when he was tied up, about a score of persons in the mob set up a loud and reiterated  

cry of 'God bless you!' 'God save you!' This cry lasted while the cap was fastening n,  

and, though those who raised it were loud and daring, it was joined in by but very  

few. The ordinary asked Bellingham if he heard what the mob were saying. He said he  

heard them crying out something, but he did not understand what it was, and inquired  

what. The cry having by this time ceased, the clergyman did not inform him what it  

was. The fastening on of the cap being accomplished, the executioner retired and a  

perfect silence ensued. Dr Ford continued praying for about a minute, while the  

executioner went below the scaffold, and preparations were made to strike away its  

supporters. The clock struck eight, and while was striking the seventh time, the  

clergyman and Bellingham both fervently praying, the supporters of the internal part  

of scaffold were struck away, and Bellingham dropped out of sight down as far as the  

knees, his body being in full view. The most perfect and awful silence prevailed; not  

even the slightest attempt at a huzza or noise of any kind whatever was made. 

The body was afterwards carried in a cart, followed by a crowd of the lower  

class, to St Bartholomew's Hospital, and privately dissected. 

The greatest precautions were adopted to prevent accidents among the crowd. A large  

bill was placarded at all the avenues the Old Bailey, and carried about on a pole, to  

this effect: 'Beware of entering the crowd! Remember thirty poor creatures pressed to  

death by the crowd when Haggerty and Holloway were executed.' But no accident of  

any moment occurred. 

To prevent any disposition to tumult, a military force was stationed near Islington and  

to the south of Blackfriars Bridge, and all the volunteer corps of the metropolis  

received instructions to be under arms during the whole of the day.

BENJAMIN RENSHAW  

Executed, after an Abortive Attempt, at Nottingham, 29th of August, 1812,  

for setting fire to a Haystack

THIS man was convicted on the clearest evidence of the wicked, wasteful  

crime of burning the hay of Mr Charles Stanton-and, in aggravation of such business,  

soon afterwards, of wantonly slaughtering a ram, the property of Mr Isaac Dodsley,  

both of the town of Mansfield, in the county of Nottinghamshire. He was sentenced to  

death, and left by the judge for execution. 

About eleven o'clock he was taken from the prison and placed in a cart,  

accompanied by the executioner and a respectable gentleman who had daily visited  

him during his condemnation. The concourse of spectators was unusually great, to  

witness the awful catastrophe. When arrived at the fatal tree, and some time had been  

spent in singing and prayer, Renshaw himself prayed with an audible voice, and  

afterwards addressed the multitude for the space of fifteen or twenty minutes,  

exhorting them, and especially youth, to avoid evil company; and this he did in a  

manner which excited the astonishment of every beholder. Such fortitude, unshaken  

confidence and composure were scarcely ever before witnessed, expressing at the  

same time, as he had done before, his assurance of the mercy of God. After he was  

turned off, the noose of the rope moved under his chin, and it was deemed proper to  

put him into the cart, that the rope might be adjusted afresh, after which he was turned  

off again. This circumstance occasioned a considerable sensation among the  

spectators, who generally expressed their abhorrence of the executioner, to whose  

carelessness they attributed the accident. After hanging the usual time, his body was  

given to his friends for interment at Mansfield.

DANIEL DAWSON  

Convicted at Cambridge Summer Assizes, 1812, and executed for Poisoning  

Racehorses at Newmarket

THIS trial excited much interest in the sporting world. The prisoner was  

arraigned on four indictments, with numerous counts-viz. for poisoning a horse  

belonging to Mr Adams, of Royston, Herts, and a blood mare belonging to Mr  

Northey, at Newmarket, in 1809; and also for poisoning a horse belonging to Sir F.  

Standish, and another belonging to Lord Foley, in 1811, at the same place. He was  

tried and convicted on the first case only. 

[Note: Dawson had been tried for a similar crime at the preceding Lent  

Assizes, and was acquitted on the grounds that he had been indicted as a principal,  

instead of an accessory, which in point of law could not be maintained.] 

Serjeant Sellon opened the case, and detailed the nature of the evidence. 

The principal witness, as on the former trial, was Cecil Bishop, an accomplice  

with the prisoner. He proved having been for some time acquainted with Dawson; and  

that, on application to him, he had furnished him with corrosive sublimate to sicken  

horses, as a friend of his had been tricked by physicking his horse, which was about to  

run a match. He went on to prove that Dawson and himself had become progressively  

acquainted; and that, on the prisoner complaining the stuff was not strong enough, he  

prepared him a solution of arsenic. Witness described this as not offensive in smell,  

the prisoner having informed him that the horses had thrown up their heads, and  

refused to partake of the water into which the corrosive sublimate had been infused.  

The prisoner again complained the stuff was not made strong enough; and on being  

informed if it was made stronger it would kill the horses he replied he did not mind  

that: the Newmarket frequenters were rogues, and if he (meaning witness) had a  

fortune to lose they would plunder him of it. The prisoner afterwards informed  

witness he used the stuff, which was then strong enough, as it had killed a hackney  

and two brood mares. The other part of Bishop's testimony went to prove the case  

against the prisoner. 

Mrs Tillbrook, a respectable housekeeper at Newmarket, where the prisoner  

lodged, proved having found a bottle of liquid concealed under Dawson's bed,  

previous to the horses having been poisoned, and that Dawson was out late on the  

Saturday and Sunday evenings previous to that event, which took place on the  

Monday. After Dawson had left the house she found the bottle, which she identified  

as having contained the said liquid, and which a chemist proved to have contained  

poison. Witness also proved that Dawson had cautioned her that he had poison in the  

house for some dogs, lest anyone should have the curiosity to taste it. Other witnesses  

proved a chain of circumstances which left no doubt of the prisoner's guilt. 

The judge pronounced sentence of death on the prisoner, and informed him, in  

strong language, he could not expect mercy to be extended to him. The unfortunate  

man suffered the awful sentence of the law, at the top of Cambridge Castle, amidst a  

surrounding assemblage of at least twelve thousand spectators, it being market-day.

JOHN DAVIES  

Sentenced to Six Months' Imprisonment for buying Guineas at a Higher  

Price than their Nominal Value, September, 1812

AT the Middlesex Sessions, September, 1812, John Davies and S. Levy, two  

old-clothes men, were indicted for buying guineas contrary to Lord Stanhope's Act.  

The defendants had been suspected of the practice of buying up gold, and a man  

named Hatfield, with the approbation of the Solicitor of the Mint, and in conjunction  

with Humphries, a police officer, was employed to endeavour to detect them. 

On the day mentioned in the indictment Hatfield met the defendant Levy in St  

James's Street, and was accosted by him, and asked whether he had any clothes to sell.  

Hatfield said he had not; and, after some conversation, asked the defendant if he  

would buy some guineas; the defendant replied in the affirmative, and it was agreed  

that they should meet at the Goat and Lion public-house, St James's, in the course of  

half-an-hour. Hatfield then informed Humphries, the officer, of the appointment, and  

three guineas were marked by him and delivered to Hatfield. 

At the time appointed they went to the Goat and Lion. Humphries remained in  

the background, and Hatfield went into the house, where he found Levy already there,  

and with him the other defendant, Davies. After some conversation had passed  

between them, Davies purchased the three guineas at twenty-five shillings each, and  

they were delivered to him. As soon as the transaction was complete, on a signal  

being given, Humphries came over, and Davies was immediately secured. On the  

officers attempting to search him he called out "Thieves!" and resisted. He was,  

however, overpowered; and on searching him the marked guineas were found in his  

pocket. The jury found Davies guilty, but acquitted Levy. 

The chairman, after animadverting on the mischievous tendency of the offence  

of which the defendant had been convicted, sentenced him to imprisonment for six  

months in the house of correction, and to find security at the expiration of that period  

for twelve months longer.

CHARLES FOX  

"The Flying Dustman," convicted at the Middlesex Sessions, September,  

1812, for an Assault, and sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment

THIS prosecution commenced at the instance of Mr Lacock, whom the  

defendant injured in his contract with the parish of St Mary, Islington. Mr Lacock was  

a cowkeeper to a large extent, generally milking several hundred. He was also  

scavenger to the said parish, paying for the liberty of taking away the dust (coal ashes)  

from the houses of the inhabitants the enormous sum of seven hundred and fifty  

pounds a year! 

The parish obtained an Act of Parliament for the regulation, among other  

things, of the duties of scavengers, which provided that any person offending therein  

might be taken into custody to answer charges made against them. On the 24th of  

June, the day laid in the indictment, the prosecutor, who was a carter in the employ of  

Mr Lacock, saw the defendant come out of a house in King Street, Islington, with a  

basket of ashes on his head, which he emptied into a cart that was standing at the  

door, and was proceeding to drive away when the prosecutor went up and stopped  

him. He swore, however, that all the men in Islington should not stop him; and, on the  

prosecutor attempting to detain him till a constable could be sent for, he struck him  

several times, and at length broke from him. He was afterwards taken by a constable. 

The defendant was what was termed a "Flying Dustman," who had no  

contract; and, paying nothing to anyone, went round the parish collecting all the ashes  

he could, to the great injury of the contractor. 

It further appeared that this was the fifth time of his thus offending. The jury  

found him guilty of the assault, and the Court immediately sentenced him to three  

months' imprisonment in the house of correction. 

Country readers could hardly suppose that a man gave seven hundred and fifty  

pounds a year, and employed several carts and a number of men, to empty his  

neighbours' dust-tubs, wherein all manner of filth was thrown. Yet this was the case in  

every parish in and about London, the officers giving the contract to the best bidder,  

and to obtain which there was sometimes as great a struggle as to get elected  

churchwarden. Lacock cleared a few hundreds a year by his contract. In a part of his  

extensive premises he employed several score of poor women and children to sift the  

ashes. First they produced cinders, which sold for about half the price of coal, to  

forges, kilns, etc. The next siftings, becoming each finer than the last, were used as  

manure, and in the making of lime, brick, etc. Thus the collecting of house ashes,  

which formerly the inhabitants were obliged to pay people to take away, produced a  

clear income, sufficient of itself for the decent maintenance of a family.

The regular dusty squad, fired with indignation at this usurpation of their  

rights and privileges, and fearing a forestalling of their Christmas presents, issued the  

following cautionary handbill to their employers:-- 

TO THE WORTHY INHABITANTS OF ST MARY, ISLINGTON. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 

We, the regular Dustmen of this parish, humbly present our respects to you, and beg  

that you will not give your Christmas Box but to such men as deliver one of these  

bills, and show a medal with the following inscription:- 

WILLIAM DUKE OF CUMBERLAND, BATTLE OF CULLODEN;  

with a Badge-"R. Lacock, No. 1 and 2, Islington." 

Men having been found going about dressed like dustmen, under false pretences-to  

defraud the regular men of what little you may please to bestow. 

Please not to deliver this bill to anyone.  

JOHN SMITH AND JOHN WALING.

THOMAS LIGHT, alias JOHN JONES, alias THOMAS  

KNIGHT.  

Tried for stealing dead bodies from St. Giles' Churchyard

The resurrection-men of London, like other combinations of workmen, struck  

for higher wages the other day, and refused to supply the Edinburgh and Glasgow  

schools of surgery with dead bodies, under an advance of two guineas for each  

subject. These sacrilegious ruffians assigned as reasons for such demand the increased  

difficulties and dangers attendant upon the robbery of a churchyard, even in alliance  

with the sexton of the parish, and the great scarcity of sound subjects after they have  

resurrectioned them, from the more corrupt manner in which men now die, as well as  

live. 

A numerous gang of these grave robbers was not long ago apprehended at  

Deptford near London; and one circumstance will, perhaps, give the reader some idea  

of the habits of these singular thieves: having been at their usual pot-of-beer club, the  

men on duty for that night were rather late in going to work; so that before they had  

got their regular load, daylight broke in upon them, and the bustle of persons passing  

and repassing by the churchyard compelled them, from fear of detection, to hide  

themselves in the very tombs where they had, during the preceding night, been  

disturbing the peaceful ashes of the dead. 

Thomas Light, alias John Jones, alias Thomas Knight, who was lately indicted  

at the Middlesex sessions, for stealing dead bodies for dissection, but did not appear  

for trial, in consequence of which a bench warrant was lately issued against him, was,  

on the 13th October, 1812, with his accomplice, one of his bail, named Patrick  

Harnell, charged by Watts, a horse-patrole, in having been the night before found in  

the act of stealing three dead bodies from St. Pancras or St. Giles's burying-ground,  

which are separated by a wall only, by the horse patrole of the Hamstead and  

Higbgate district. 

Light attempted to escape, but was secured; and, from the frequency of such  

offences, strong indignation was excited. It was not clear from which burying ground  

the bodies were stolen; and, therefore, the magistrate ordered notice to be served on  

St. Giles's parish officers, to attend the final examination, on a future day, and  

remanded the prisoners. One of the dead bodies was that of a female, apparently of  

eighteen years of age-a second, a boy of about twelve-and the third, a new-born  

infant. The sack into which they were all crammed was taken to the Elephant and  

Castle public-house at Pancras, in the hope of their being owned and re-interred. It  

appeared on a second examination that the dead bodies had been paupers who had  

died in the poorhouse of St. Giles's, and had been buried in the burial ground  

belonging to the said parish; and from whence they had been taken. The prisoners  

denied having any knowledge of the transaction, farther than seeing two men with the  

sacks, who made their escape. 

Light was at length brought to trial at the quarter sessions, in October, 1812,  

for this most unnatural kind of theft. Besides the suspicion upon him in the affair at  

Pancras, above-mentioned, it was proved, that one evening he was stopped in Great  

James-street, Bedford-square, on his road to an eminent surgeon's, with the dead body  

of a man; but the proof failed of his having stolen it out of a churchyard; and, though  

not a shadow of a doubt remained of his guilt, he for a while escaped the punishment  

of his crime.

EDWARD TURNER  

A pugilist, convicted of manslaughter for killing his opponent, 22nd  

October, 1812

ON the 22nd of October a fight took place at Moulsey Hurst, between Turner,  

who made his debut on this occasion, and Curtis, designated the Dutch Sam of his  

weight from his public fighting. Betting was 5 to 2 and 3 to 1 on the event. Turner  

exhibited the traits of a British pugilist in more instances than one when he had his  

adversary in his power. Curtis, from the attitude of Turner, could not get at him, and  

the gamer he exhibited the more he got punished. At length, after struggling against  

every disadvantage one hour and twenty-eight minutes, he fell, apparently lifeless,  

and being conveyed over the water to an inn, at Hampton, he betrayed the most  

alarming symptoms. Surgeons being promptly sent for, and a vein being opened, he  

bled freely; but death had grasped him too firmly for mortal aid to prove efficacious. 

An inquest was of course held on his body, and the evidence of two surgeons  

went to prove that he had died of the blows he received from Turner. Mr Griffenhoofe  

was not present until long after the battle took place, but Mr Jones was present upon  

the spot, and gave it as his decided opinion that the man could not live. The young  

man, assistant to Mr Griffenhoofe, bled the deceased about half an hour after the fight,  

but there was nothing particular to narrate on the subject. 

Mr Coombes, of Hampton, proved that the deceased fought with Turner, that  

they shook hands before the battle took place, and that he assisted in taking the  

deceased from the ring in a senseless state. He proved, also, that the seconds, the  

umpire, and the patrons of fighting, strenuously urged Curtis to give in, and that he  

refused to do so; and even slipped away from his seconds when they were in the act of  

carrying him away, and fought again. 

Mr Kent stated, that, for about twelve rounds before the termination of the  

contest, he told Curtis he had no chance to win, and that it was a pity he should suffer  

himself to be beaten to pieces. The reply of the deceased was, that he could not lose  

the battle; and he maintained this assertion against every remonstrance, until he fell in  

the last round, and never recovered from a state of stupor. Oliver, his second, advised  

him also in vain to resign long before the battle was decided, and the umpire refused  

to hold the watch any longer, but the deceased entertained a notion that he would win  

until the moment he fell. The evidence of this witness went to explain on the subject  

of the fall. He stated, that in the struggle for superiority, both men were down, and  

that Turner had an opportunity of doing mischief to his adversary, by falling upon  

him, but he broke from him, and behaved in a manly manner, as he had done in other  

instances during the fight. After this fall, Curtis never recovered from the stupor; and  

witness believed him to be in a dying state before he reached the inn at Hampton.  

After being put to bed, Mr Jones the surgeon pronounced him to be in a very  

dangerous state, and witness together with the people at the inn, used every exertion  

in procuring medical aid. The deceased at this time was cold at the extremities, and  

appeared to be dying. Witness went on to state, that the deceased laboured under  

disease, and that he was advised rather to forfeit the stake for which he fought, than  

contend for it: but his reply was, that he was sure to beat his man. He died a quarter  

before twelve at night, but witness left him in two hours after the battle. 

The jury without hesitation found a verdict of manslaughter against Turner,  

who was committed to Tothill Fields Bridewell, till the next Old Bailey Sessions. The  

evidence on his trial was similar to the above, and in his defence he gave in a paper, in  

which he declared his aversion to prize-fighting; that though he was unfortunately  

goaded on to fight with Curtis, he had not the most distant intention of doing him any  

serious injury, but was, on the contrary, repeatedly desirous that Curtis should give up  

the contest. No man could feel more regret than himself at the awful result of that  

contest, but he declared himself innocent of the most distant intention to injure the  

deceased. 

A great many witnesses were called by Mr Andrews, who gave Turner an  

excellent character for humanity, and for a particularly mild temper. Many of them  

had known him from his infancy. One particularly declared that perhaps no individual  

had been more insulted than Turner had been by Curtis, and no man could possibly  

exercise more moderation and forbearance than for a long time he had done; and  

though Curtis was repeatedly assured that Turner refused to fight him, he still  

persisted in these insults, and, if possible, repeated them with more aggravations. 

Mr Baron Graham summed up. He observed, that no person whatever could  

suppose the prisoner actuated by malice in what he had done on the present occasion.  

It was equally dear that he was none of those desperate offenders in prize-fighting-a  

system which had unfortunately become too common in these days. Turner had the  

appearance of being a brave young man, and therefore was an object for Curtis to  

attack; ambitious, as every person belonging to the prize fighting corps was, to  

acquire more renown by defeating the prowess of such a man as Turner. Though a  

person might disapprove of these battles, it was impossible to feel that horror of them,  

which a person did when two parties deliberately went out armed, for they could only  

be considered as a trial of courage. It was a fact unquestionably true, that Turner had  

no hostility whatever to the deceased; for, on the contrary, he had shewn himself  

actuated by motives of the purest humanity during the whole of the contest: He (the  

judge) did not wish to throw any imputation on the deceased; at the same time he  

deplored that obstinacy he had shewn during the fight, and he particularly deplored  

the numerous insults he had offered to Turner, and which Turner had long and  

patiently endured without offering any retaliation: that patience was honourable to  

him in every point of view. The consequences had indeed been fatal to that unhappy  

young man; but it would be extremely unjust to say Turner was responsible for these  

consequences, as being the cause of them. Turner had been very humane during the  

contest, declining on every occasion to take any advantage of what his superiority in  

point of strength and wind had given him. The jury could therefore do nothing more  

than find him guilty of manslaughter. 

The jury, after two minutes' consultation, found him Guilty of Manslaughter;  

but earnestly recommended him to mercy for his humanity in the contest, his sorrow  

for its issue, and his most excellent character. 

He was sentenced to two months imprisonment in Newgate.

LIEUTENANT GAMAGE  

Late of the Griffon Sloop-of-War, hanged at the Yardarm of that Ship, in  

November, 1812, for the Murder of a Sergeant of Marines

THIS unfortunate young officer fell a victim to ungovernable passion. He had  

ordered a sergeant of marines upon some duty which the sergeant, conceiving it  

incompatible with his rank, refused performing. He was, withal, insolent in his replies.  

The Lieutenant burst into a violent passion, ran to his cabin, seized his dirk, returned  

and stabbed the sergeant to the heart. For this crime he was tried by a court martial,  

and sentenced to death. 

The execution took place on board the Griffon. He bore his fate with manly  

fortitude. About eight o'clock he was attended by the clergyman, who remained with  

him till about half-past nine, when the procession began from his cabin to the platform  

from whence he was to be launched into eternity. The clergyman walked first; then  

Lieutenant Gamage, attended on each side by two friends, officers; several officers  

followed afterwards; everyone present was deeply affected at the unfortunate fate of  

this young gentleman, the ship's company particularly. Boats from the different ships  

attended, as usual, round the execution, and the same sympathy and pity was  

observable in each. "God receive his soul!" frequently burst forth from different  

seamen. He bowed and thanked them three times, and seemed deeply affected with  

the sympathy he excited. He spoke shortly to his own crew, warning them to beware  

of giving way to sudden passion. As soon as he reached the platform he prayed again  

with the clergyman, and precisely at ten o'clock, the signal gun being fired, he was run  

up to the yardarm, amidst the repeated exclamations from the seamen of "God bless  

and receive him! "He appeared to suffer but little. 

Previous to the execution the following circular address was sent by Admiral  

Foley to every ship in his fleet: -- 

"THE Commander-in-Chief most earnestly desires to direct the particular  

attention of the fleet to the melancholy scene they are now called to attend-a scene  

which offers a strong, and much he hopes an impressive, lesson to every person in it-a  

lesson to all who are to command, to all who are to obey. Lieutenant Gamage is  

represented by every person who knew him, and by the unanimous voice of the  

Griffon's ship's company, as a humane, compassionate man, a kind, indulgent officer;  

yet for want of that guard which every man should keep over his passions this kind,  

humane, compassionate man commits the dreadful crime of murder! 

"Let his example strike deep into the minds of all who witness his unhappy  

end; and, whatever their general disposition may be, let them learn from him that, if  

they are not always watchful to restrain their passions within their proper bounds, one  

moment of intemperate anger may destroy the hopes of a well-spent honourable life,  

and bring them to an untimely and disgraceful death. And let those who are to obey  

learn from the conduct of the sergeant the fatal effects which may result from  

contempt and insolent conduct towards their superiors. By repeated insolence the  

sergeant overcame the kind and gentle disposition of Lieutenant Gamage; and, by  

irritating and inflaming his passion, occasioned his own death. 

"The Commander-in-Chief hopes that this afflicting lesson may not be offered  

in vain; but, seriously contemplating the awful example before them, every officer  

and every man will learn from it, never to suffer himself to be driven by ill-governed  

passion to treat with cruelty or violence those over whom he is to command, nor by  

disobedience or disrespect to rouse the passions of those whom it is his duty to obey  

and respect.  

(Signed) "THOMAS FOLEY."  

"To the respective Captains and Commanders of his Majesty's ships and  

vessels in the Downs." 

The body was brought on shore for interment at two o'clock, and was received  

at landing by Perrer Dower, Esq., Governor of the Naval Hospital, who, with a  

number of naval and military officers, attended this unfortunate young gentleman's  

remains to the burial-ground at the Naval Hospital, where they were deposited.  

General Trollope, and the officers of the Griffon, with several of the crew, were  

present, and bore ample testimony, by their appearance, to the regret they felt at his  

untimely fate.

JOHN WALKER  

Another Tyrannical Guardian of the Peace of the Night, whose Case offers  

another Peep into a London Watch-House, imprisoned for assaulting a  

Woman, November, 1812

AT the London Sessions held at the Guildhall on the 30th of November, 1812,  

this man was indicted for a gross assault on Elizabeth Ann Hammond. This lady was  

the wife of Mr Hammond, a respectable insurance-broker in the City, and deposed  

that as she was returning from Covent Garden Theatre, on the 24th of October, in  

company with her husband, she was treated with the most brutal violence by a coal- 

heaver, named Eagle, whom Mr Hammond, with the assistance of the patrol, secured  

and took to a watch-house, in Broadway, Blackfriars, where the defendant presided as  

constable of the night. The defendant, however, wishing to turn the affair to his own  

advantage, refused to receive any charge against Eagle unless money was deposited  

with him by Mr Hammond, who, to avoid Eagle's escaping, consented to such deposit;  

but protested against the defendant's conduct in demanding it, and threatened to  

punish him for so doing. At this the defendant declined to take the money, and  

expressed his determination to commit Mrs Hammond, if the charge against Eagle  

was persisted in; and this not being withdrawn, the defendant proceeded to take Mrs  

Hammond to the compter, but before he left the watch-house-in order to shelter his  

own misconduct-he advised Eagle to make a counter-charge against Mrs Hammond;  

and on this being made the defendant, notwithstanding the threats of Mr Hammond,  

proceeded to force Mrs Hammond from the watch-house towards the compter, in  

company with Eagle, until they arrived at the house of a gentleman who was known to  

Mr Hammond, who undertook for her and Mr Hammond's appearance, if necessary,  

the next morning. These facts being clearly proved in evidence, the defendant's  

counsel, after a strict cross-examination of the witnesses, admitted that, while he saw  

no pretence for the defendant acting as he had done, he saw many reasons why he  

ought to have acted otherwise; and the jury, without a moment's hesitation,  

pronounced the defendant guilty. 

The learned recorder, after pointing out to the defendant the necessity there  

was for investing a certain degree of power in the hands of constables, and remarking  

in terms of severity on the unwarrantable manner in which the defendant had abused  

the authority with which he was entrusted, sentenced him to be imprisoned for six  

calendar months in the Giltspur Street Compter.

THE MARQUIS OF SLIGO  

Convicted of enticing British Seamen to desert, fined Five Thousand  

Pounds, and imprisoned Four Months in Newgate, 16th of December, 1812

AT nine o'clock Sir William Scott attended, and charged the grand jury. The  

Court then adjourned till ten o'clock, at which hour Sir William Scott returned,  

accompanied by Lord Ellenborough, Mr Baron Thompson and several Doctors of  

Law. The Duke of Clarence was on the bench. The jury were then sworn to try the  

Marquis of Sligo, who appeared in court, and sat by his counsel, Messrs Dauncey,  

Dampier and Scarlett. 

Before the trial began, Mr Dauncey stated that his lordship wished to plead  

guilty as to part, and not guilty as to the rest; and wished, therefore, only one part now  

to be entered into. 

Dr Robinson, on the other side, was not unwilling to accede to this  

arrangement; but Lord Ellenborough said that the indictment must not be garbled. He  

must plead guilty to the whole, or not guilty to the whole. 

After some conversation between the counsel the trial proceeded; the  

indictment was read, charging the Marquis with unlawfully receiving on board his  

ship William Elden, a seaman in the King's service, and detaining, concealing and  

secreting him. The second count charged him with enticing and persuading the said  

seaman to desert; the third count, with receiving the said Elden, knowing him to have  

deserted. 

There were other counts with respect to other seamen, and a count for an  

assault and false imprisonment. 

Dr Robinson (the Advocate-General) stated the case. Captain Sprainger  

(examined by the Attorney-General) stated that in April, 1810, the Marquis was  

introduced to him by letter from Admiral Martin; his lordship appeared desirous of  

making a tour, and for that purpose hired a vessel called the Pylades. The witness  

gave him all the assistance in his power, by sending to him riggers and carpenters and  

gunners, who were lent to him for the purpose of outfitting his vessel, but still  

remained part of his (Captain Sprainger's) crew. In the course of these transactions his  

lordship passed and repassed in a boat called the gig, which was rowed by four men:  

Charles Lee, Robert Lloyd, James Foljambe and John Walker; they had belonged to  

the boat for three years, and were constantly in it. The defendant observed that they  

were fine clever-looking men. Afterwards, about a week before he sailed, he missed  

two of these men, which the more surprised him as they were very trusty seamen, had  

never been absent or irregular, and, though frequently suffered to go on shore without  

a midshipman, had never in any instance abused this confidence. They had, besides,  

the wages of three years due to them. On the 13th, before he sailed, he went on board  

the Pylades, to see Lord Sligo, and told him of the extraordinary circumstance of his  

missing these two men, whom his lordship probably recollected. He was then going to  

communicate to his lordship some suspicions which his officers had suggested to him,  

when Lord Sligo interrupted him, saying surely he (Captain Sprainger) could not think  

him so base as to take away these men, after the civilities by him shown to his  

lordship. He further said that some of the men whom he had lent to him had offered to  

desert, but that he refused to accept them. Witness then replied to Lord Sligo that he  

trusted he had not his men, and that he would not take them or any others from his  

Majesty's service; but, lest they should come to him, he (Captain S.) would leave a  

description of their persons, and take his lordship's word of honour that he would not  

receive them, but give them up to the commanding officer at Malta, who had orders to  

keep them till his return. He then left his lordship, having received his promise and  

word of honour, and having remarked to his lordship how serious a thing it was to  

entice his Majesty's seamen. The fleet was at that time nearly two thousand below its  

complement, and it was very difficult to procure British seamen. He did not muster  

his lordship's crew; they seemed to be foreigners, in number about twenty or thirty.  

His lordship had proposed to take fifty men, as his vessel was to be a letter of marque.  

A few would have been sufficient for the purposes of navigation. As soon as he  

reached the ship he ordered a description of the two men to be made out, and it was  

sent to Lord Sligo; he received no answer then, though he afterwards had a letter from  

his lordship. He had never seen Lee or Lloyd since. (The letter was here read, in  

which Lord Sligo stated that in the course of his voyage he found that he had on board  

some men-of-war's men, and that he was determined to send them on shore the first  

opportunity. Whatever expenses he might incur on their account he should put down  

to the score of humanity, and glory in it. He thought this explanation necessary to  

Captain Sprainger, who had treated him like a gentleman; but the other captain who  

complained he should not notice. If the business was brought into court he should do  

his best to defend himself; and if he did not succeed he had an ample fortune, and  

could pay the fines.) This letter was dated Constantinople. 

William Elden, a seaman-who was in the navy nearly thirteen years, and at the  

time mentioned was on board the Montague, off Malta, and had a ticket-of-leave to go  

ashore there on the 13th of that month, in the morning-said he and other seamen,  

belonging to the Montague, four of them in all, were going back to their ships when  

they were accosted by two men in livery, and another, who was dressed in a white  

jacket. The men in livery were servants of the Marquis of Sligo, and the other was the  

second mate of his lordship's vessel. They gave him drink, and so intoxicated him that  

he knew not how he got on board the Pylades, where he found himself placed in the  

pump well, abaft the mainmast, when he recovered his senses; and there he also saw  

two more of his shipmates, and a stranger, who was in a sailor's dress. Witness then  

came on deck, where he saw MacDermot, Thompson, Cook, Fisher and Brown on the  

deck. He also saw Lord Sligo on board, that evening on deck, who asked him his  

name, when witness told his name, and that he belonged to the Montague. They were  

then two miles from shore. Next morning he again saw Lord Sligo, being then  

perfectly sober, when he was walking the deck with a shipmate of the Montague, of  

which they were talking. Lord Sligo again asked their names, and they answered that  

they were Elden and Story, and that those were the names by which they went on  

board that ship; but Story told his lordship that being men-of-war's men it would not  

do to go by their own names, and Lord Sligo immediately said: "Come to me, and I  

will alter them." They went on the quarterdeck, and defendant gave the name of  

William Smith to the witness. A few days afterwards his lordship told him that he  

would be useful in exercising the guns, to which he replied that he saw none there  

who did not know the use of the guns as well as himself. He then saw nine men of the  

Montague there: Cook, Fisher, Brown, Story, Sullivan, Thompson, MacDermot and  

Travers. Lord Sligo took an active part in the management of the vessel, and assigned  

to them all their duties. At Palermo he asked Lord Sligo for leave to go on shore to get  

clothes; his lordship gave him five four-dollar pieces for wages. He went onshore and  

returned, not surrendering himself to any King's ship. At Messina he begged leave to  

quit the Pylades, and offered to return all the money and clothes he had received; his  

lordship would not suffer him, and foreign sentinels were placed in arms over the  

crew to prevent any from escaping. Lord Sligo at Palermo told the crew that he had  

procured a protection from Admiral Martin, having pledged his honour that he had no  

men-of-war's men on board. They were afterwards chased by the Active frigate and a  

brig, and were brought to, and a King's boat came alongside. Lord Sligo then desired  

witness to go below, who said he would rather stay where he was. The rest were then  

below. Lord Sligo left him for a few minutes; but returned, and told him he must go  

down. He then went down into the after-hold underneath the cabin, where were the  

rest of the seamen of the Warrior and the Montague; the hatch was closed over them,  

and a ladder placed at top. In about half-an-hour they were called up. They then  

proceeded to Patmos, where he and some more had leave of absence for a few days.  

The next day Lord Sligo sailed without giving them any notice, and left him and six  

more in great distress. They were forced to sell their clothing; they had nothing but  

what they stood upright in. They got a boat, but could not overtake the Pylades; they  

then went to Scio, and went with a British consul to the Pylades; but Lord Sligo  

refused to take them in, and threatened to fire at them; he knew them very well, as  

they were all upon deck; he took four of them on board-the carpenter, the surgeon, the  

man of the Warrior (Lee), and the sailmaker. The witness had been since tried, and  

sentenced to receive two hundred lashes; but his punishment had been remitted. 

Fisher, Sullivan and Brown, all belonging to the Montague, corroborated  

Elden's statement. Captain Hayes deposed to his having searched the Pylades, when  

the Marquis declared, upon his word, no men were concealed on board. 

After a short consultation in the box the jury found his lordship guilty of all  

the counts in the indictment, except one for false imprisonment. 

The judge (Sir William Scott) then ordered that his lordship, who was in court,  

should enter into recognisance to appear the next day to receive judgment. 

The trial lasted till nearly two o'clock in the morning. 

The Marquis of Sligo on Thursday appeared in court to receive sentence; an  

affidavit was put in, which purported that he knew nothing of the circumstance of his  

having men-of-war's men on board till the time of the search. 

Lord Ellenborough interrupted it by observing that the affidavit must not  

impeach the evidence. 

Mr Scarlett said that was not its object. 

The affidavit was then continued, stating that as soon as he found he had two  

of the Warrior's men he was anxious to dismiss them; it then expressed contrition for  

his folly and rashness, and a hope that the letter which was written to Captain  

Sprainger (which was never intended for the public) would not be thought to convey  

any disrespect for the laws of his country, which he was ready and anxious to uphold. 

Sir William Scott then, after an impressive speech, passed the sentence of the  

Court upon his lordship, which was, that his lordship should pay to the King a fine of  

five thousand pounds, and be imprisoned four months in Newgate. 

His lordship bowed, and was conducted by the keepers through the private  

door to the jail.

JOACHIM, a Portuguese; MARTIN, a black;  

MILLINGTON, an Irishman; and WILLIAMS, an  

Englishman  

Tried and executed for mutiny and murder of their officers, while making an  

English port, in a French prize brig, December, 1812

AT a court-martial held on board his majesty's ship Salvador del Mundo, in  

the Hamoaze at Plymouth in December, 1812, these inhuman seamen were tried for  

one of the foulest, unprovoked, and desperate murders which ever disgraced the  

British navy. 

It appeared in evidence that Joachim, a Portuguese; Martin, a black, belonging  

to the Diana; Millington, an Irishman; and Williams, an Englishman, belonging to the  

Growler gun-brig; Baptist, another black, concerned in the murder, drowned,-with  

two other seamen, named Boyd and Grant, admitted as evidence against them, were  

put on board the French prize-brig Le Suir Marée, along with the three persons they  

murdered, viz. Mr Andrews, master's mate; Mr Bolen, quarter master; and Mr  

Winsland, steward, a passenger; and that, after in vain attempting to carry the vessel  

into an enemy's port, they were again fell in with by the Diana and Aquilon frigates  

and brought to Plymouth in irons. 

After the court had been duly sworn, the first witness called was Boyd, who  

deposed, that, on the 25th of November, himself, with Grant, the prisoners, the black  

since drowned, and the three missing people, were put on board the brig, and directed  

to proceed to Plymouth, which they did, until the night of the 29th, or morning of the  

30th; when off Scilly, the diabolical plan was put in execution. That he and Grant had  

the first watch, from eight to twelve, and were relieved at twelve by some of the  

prisoners. That at about three o'clock be was called by Joachim, but he did not attend  

to him;-that he was called the second time, when he went upon deck, where he was  

told by Joachim and Baptist, they had taken the vessel, and intended to take her to  

France, and if he would join them he might;-this offer he peremptorily refused, and  

called for Bolen, who did not answer; he called again, and was answered by one of the  

prisoners that he was dead; horror instantly struck him to the soul: he, however, called  

for Grant, who answered very low; on which Joachim told him, as he was a poor  

seaman like himself he might go below and they should not hurt him: that he then  

went down the steerage into the cable-tier, where be found Grant, who had been  

previously called up, and asked the same questions. Here their situation must have  

been truly dismal, expecting every moment to be murdered also. They were kept as  

prisoners by the negro Martin, who stood over them with Mr Andrews's sword. Boyd  

further stated that there was only a sliding door which parted them and the cabin,  

where they saw a body covered over with a quilt, and lying on the floor, which was  

afterwards removed on deck, and thrown overboard. That in the morning, at day-light,  

they heard a voice on deck say, two sail in chase, and about eight o'clock they heard  

the boat lowered from the stern, and row off. That, after the boat was gone, Boyd  

looked on deck, and perceiving only Baptist, Millington, and Williams, he said to  

Grant, 'Now is our time to go on deck, and throw the black (Baptist) overboard, and  

secure the other two;' with which Grant complied, and they both went up:-by this  

time the vessels were near them, and they were about seven miles from the Saints  

Island, standing quite on upon the land; for some time they (the witnesses) appeared  

to take no notice; but on Boyd observing the fore-top bowline loose, be desired the  

black to haul it taught, and he went to assist, hoping to get an opportunity to throw  

him overboard; but, not finding an advantageous opportunity then, he walked behind  

him towards the stern, and observing the main mast topsail-sheet gone, he desired him  

to haul that tight. When the desired moment arrived, he seized the black, and threw  

him outside the bulwark, where the fellow clung with his hands to the rigging, and  

with his teeth almost bit off Boyd's thumb, On Grant observing this, he ran to Boyd's  

assistance, and struck the black on the head with a stick, and knocked him overboard.  

That he (Boyd) then went to the helm, seized Millington, tied his hands, and set him  

on the deck; that Grant, at the same time seized Williams, and set them side by side on  

the deck, when they stood the vessel off the land, to near the frigate, and to avoid the  

black who was still swimming. That the Aquilon's boat boarded them soon after, when  

he related to the lieutenant what had happened, and was then taken on board the  

Diana. 

The next witness called was Grant, who deposed exactly to the same effect.  

Both of them gave their evidence in the most clear and steady manner. 

The prisoners stated no cause that led them to commit this diabolical act. They  

were of course found guilty, after a most patient investigation, and accordingly were  

sentenced to suffer death on board such ships, and at such time, as the lords  

commissioners of the Admiralty shall be pleased to direct. 

The awful sentence, although read in the most impressive manner by the  

judge-advocate, had not the smallest effect on anyone but Millington, who cried  

much, for which he was jeered by Williams, who told him that hanging was nothing  

but choaking! 

The president, before dismissing the court, took the opportunity of returning  

thanks to Boyd and Grant, for their brave and seaman-like conduct while in such a  

perilous situation; and said, he hoped it would never be forgotten by those present,  

and that their high and meritorious behaviour deserved the greatest praise. The  

prisoners were hanged from the yard-arm of a vessel of war.

JOHN AND LEIGH HUNT  

Imprisoned for a Libel on His Royal Highness the Prince Regent 

As the following trial is so recent, and must be still in the memory of our  

readers, who have most probably formed their own opinions respecting it, we shall  

forbear to make any comments; and which our limits will not allow us to give at  

length. 

John and Leigh Hunt, one the editor, and the other the printer, of a newspaper  

called the Examiner, having been convicted of a libel on the above-mentioned  

illustrious personage, were brought up to receive the judgment of the court, on  

Wednesday, the 3rd of February; and, as soon as the judges, lord Ellenborough, Mr  

Justice Le Blanc, and Mr Justice Bailey, had taken their seats upon the bench. 

The solicitor-general, Sir W. Garrow, moved for the judgment of the court  

upon the two defendants convicted of having printed and published a libel upon the  

prince regent, in the Examiner, Sunday newspaper. John and Leigh Hunt were  

accordingly called, and appearing, took their places upon the floor of the court. The  

chief justice then read the notes he had taken upon the trial, and read the libel as set  

forth in the information. 

An affidavit, in the following words, was then put in by the defendants, and  

read by the clerk:-"John Hunt and Leigh Hunt, the above-named defendants, severally  

make oath and say,-- first, the defendant, John Hunt, for himself, says, that he is the  

printer and part proprietor of the newspaper called the Examiner; and the defendant,  

Leigh Hunt, for himself, says, that he is the editor and the other part proprietor of the  

said newspaper: and these defendants severally say, that in writing and publishing the  

paper of which they had been convicted as for a libel, they were actuated by no  

personal malice whatever, nor any love or purpose of slander, and that they are  

conscious of no motives which were not honourable in writing and publishing the  

same. And these defendants further say, that with respect to their pecuniary resources  

(they are informed, and believe, that an erroneous opinion hath gone abroad, greatly  

magnifying the same, and they feel they have not altogether a right, in regard to their  

families, to omit to contradict the said reports,) that although their concern in the said  

newspaper is at present in a promising condition, and such as to enable them to  

maintain a respectable appearance, early difficulties arising from the heavy expenses  

of settling up their business, and other causes of a private nature, have nearly  

anticipated its profits up to the present hour-and they further say, that in addition to  

the incumbrances on their concern already mentioned, they have been put to very  

heavy expenses in three previous prosecutions, in one of which they were acquitted,  

and in the two others were never brought to trial,-and that their nett profits of one  

year were totally exhausted by the expenses attending one of such prosecutions which  

occurred within that year: and they submit to this honourable court, if it shall be its  

intention to punish them by any fine, that this circumstance should be taken into its  

consideration in mitigation of the amount of such fine." 

No affidavits having been produced on behalf of the prosecution, the solicitor- 

general observed, that by the rules of the court the defendants' counsel was first to  

address their lordships. 

Lord Ellenborough inquired if any counsel attended for Messrs. Hunt, when  

Mr L. Hunt replied, that they did not wish to occupy the time of the court, as the  

affidavit above quoted contained every thing they wished to urge. 

The solicitor-general then said, "As this case calls for the judgment of your  

lordships, without any additional matter being afforded, (for I shall take the liberty of  

considering the affidavit just read as not comprising any important matter, since it is  

confined to a declaration on the part of the defendants, of their understanding of the  

motives with which they printed that which the jury found to be a malignant libel, and  

to a statement only of the pecuniary condition of these gentlemen) I do not think it  

necessary to trouble the court with any observations. All that could be said in defence,  

in extenuation, and in apology for the libel, was on a former occasion urged at  

considerable length, and with great ability: it was addressed to those who were the  

proper judges of such topics-it was addressed to a jury which found the defendants  

guilty.-In this stage of the proceeding, I may repeat what at a former period I stated,  

that in my judgment (which may perhaps be very erroneous,) if the libel does not  

speak for itself in terms to call upon your lordships for such a sentence as may secure  

the public against a repetition of this crime, no remarks I might, in my official  

situation, make, ought to induce the court to pronounce a judgment that would  

produce that beneficial result.-I leave this case, therefore, in the hands of your  

lordships, without disturbing the court by any further observations." 

A conference of some minutes then took place between the three judges, after  

which, Mr Justice Le Blanc addressed the defendants in the following terms:-- "John  

Hunt and Leigh Hunt, you have been tried and convicted by a jury of your country, of  

printing and publishing a scandalous and defamatory libel upon his royal highness the  

prince regent. The libel is contained in the information, and has been stated to the  

court, and it is impossible for anyone who has paid attention to the terms in which the  

libel is expressed, in the newspaper of which you, John Hunt, were the printer, and  

you, Leigh Hunt, the editor, not to say that it is a mischievous and daring attack upon  

the person filling the first situation in the government of this country. Your affidavit  

states, that in printing and publishing this passage in your newspaper, and in writing  

that libel, you "were actuated by no personal malice whatever, nor by any love or  

purpose of slander," and that "you are not conscious of any motives which are not  

honourable," that induced you to commit this offence. What were the motives which  

induced you either to compose, or to adopt the composition of others, and which in  

your minds appeared honourable, and not with any design to slander from personal  

malice, it is impossible for me to conceive; but this one may venture to pronounce,  

that no man filling the character of a good subject could, with any motive but a bad  

one, print a libel of this description, attacking and vilifying the head of the  

government of the country; because the individual occupying that station, standing at  

the head of the government of a nation, is not to be held up in public newspaper, in  

the manner you have held up the prince regent, as an object of detestation and  

abhorrence, which you endeavour to persuade your readers that he is. Whether your  

motive was to gratify the mischievous curiosity of the public-to satisfy the diseased  

taste of the people, greedy to catch at anything which, by destroying the respect due to  

the constituted authorities, pulls down those at the head of affairs to the lowest  

possible level-if such were the motive which you call not malicious or dishonourable,  

the court cannot pronounce. But when they have before them men who have been  

convicted of offences like the present, it behoves those who are entrusted with the  

administration of criminal justice to protect that government under which we all live,  

and to support the head of that government, without which the present state of society  

could not exist. in passing, therefore, the sentence of the court, it is necessary to keep  

in view that which is ever an object of criminal justice-to hold forth to the world, that  

those who are found in your situation, must answer to the country for the mischief  

which their publication must necessarily occasion, since the effect of it is to destroy  

the bonds of society, by holding up the government to disgrace and contempt. We  

must point out wholesome examples to others, to deter them from being guilty of  

offences similar to that of which you have been convicted. 

"The sentence of the court upon you, therefore, is, that you severally pay to the  

king a fine of £500 each; that you be severally imprisoned for the space of two years;  

you, John Hunt, in the prison in Coldbath-fields, and you, Leigh Hunt, in the New Jail  

for the county of Surrey in Horsemonger-lane; that at the expiration of that time, you  

each of you give security in £500 and two sufficient sureties in £250 for your good  

behaviour during five years, and that you be further severally imprisoned until such  

fine be paid, and such security given." 

The defendants bowed, and withdrew from the court in custody.

HENRY MORRIS  

Transported for Bigamy

Henry Morris and Mary Ann Murphy

"FRAILTY, thy name is Woman," says Shakespeare. The immortal bard is  

right; or how could we find them, in spite of precept and example, still the victims of  

the dissolute and designing; clinging to their destroyers with a devotional tenacity,  

which, like their beauty, almost makes us pardon their indiscretion; so accustomed are  

we to expect virtue where appearances promise all that is commendable. But if we  

must lament the infatuation of the frailer sex, in what terms can we express our  

detestation of the villain who calculates on their weakness and simplicity, and, like the  

veiled prophet of Korassan, exhibits not the hideousness of his natural character until  

the victim is secured? But, alas! not even then has infatuated woman resolution  

enough to evince the dignity of insulted virtue; for we too often find them, as in the  

present instance, become more attached, as their destroyer becomes more worthless. 

Henry Morris, in 1813, was indicted at Green Street, Dublin, for marrying  

Mary Anne Murphy, on the 15th of May, 1811, having been previously married to  

Maria Fontaine, on the 7th of August, 1805, who was alive at the time of his second  

marriage. 

Both marriages being proved, Dennis Murphy, the afflicted father of the last of  

the prisoner's wives (for he had several), came forward and detailed a narrative of  

wrongs, that sensibly affected the Court. He first knew the prisoner on the 15th day of  

October twelvemonth, at a billiard room in Dame Street. He told him of being deeply  

in love with his daughter, who was then only fifteen years of age; and represented  

himself as a teacher, of great respectability. Morris was then introduced to Mr  

Murphy's family, and continued his visits for five or six months; at the expiration of  

which time he persuaded the credulous girl to elope with him. 

Two months after, the villain Morris wrote the unfortunate father a letter;  

expressed much contrition for what had occurred; and attributed it to the violence of  

love, "which would not brook delay." He begged God's and Mr Murphy's pardon; and  

requested a meeting. A meeting accordingly took place; the parties were reconciled;  

and Morris and Miss Murphy were legally married. But, before the wounded feelings  

of the father had been healed, he accidentally acquired information which caused  

them to bleed afresh. He learned, too surely, that his hopeful son-in-law had several  

wives; and that he had abandoned four young girls whom he had successively  

married. The poor man, with tears which bespoke the anguish of his heart, here  

mentioned that Maria Fontaine had died of a broken heart three weeks before the trial;  

and said that his unfortunate daughter still continued so attached to her destroyer, that  

she spent the whole of her time with him in Newgate, coming home occasionally for  

support, which was given to her; for the unhappy parents could not bring themselves  

to desert their poor child, under any circumstances; and, if they were to do so, would  

consider themselves accountable in the eye of Heaven for the crimes she would fall  

into; as, in case of being turned from the paternal door, she had no alternative but  

street prostitution. 

The wretched girl, lovely as unfortunate, was in court during the trial, and  

remained close to the prisoner. When the verdict was pronounced, she burst into the  

most outrageous expressions of grief; cried out most violently to save him; tore her  

hair, and clung around his neck, declaring that she would not be separated from him.  

The judges, however, ordered her to be removed, but directed that it should be done as  

gently as possible; and she was accordingly carried out of court in a state of utter  

distraction. Morris was then sentenced to transportation for seven years; the judge  

remarking that he had often ordered a man to be hanged for an offence much less  

heinous. 

We cannot omit this opportunity of saying a few words respecting the virtue of  

prudence, which may be called the guardian of all the other domestic virtues. Without  

expatiating on its general importance, perhaps, it may be sufficient to remark that  

affliction of Murphy's family, and the ruin of his miserable child, proceeded directly  

from the total absence of prudence in the old man. He introduces a stranger;  

encourages his addresses to his daughter, only fifteen years of age; and then permits  

them to go out alone; for under pretence of going to prayers they had eloped! Surely  

he who took such little precaution to guard his child from error deserved to suffer for  

that child's impropriety. This case, however, will not be unproductive to public  

benefit. Parents may learn from it to guard their children from the arts of strangers;  

and the young women may be taught that to trust their ears to the tongue of men,  

whose character they know not, is to invite the seducer to spread his snares for their  

ruin.

WILLIAM CORNWELL  

A Murderer, who was traced by a Watch he had sold, and was executed in  

1813

MRS STEPHENS was seen in her shop at Woodford, on Saturday night about  

ten o'clock, sitting behind her counter; and about eleven o'clock a female who  

occupied the adjoining house heard Mrs Stephens's door bang to with great violence,  

and then immediately heard someone run away. 

When discovered, Mrs Stephens was lying upon her face on the floor behind  

the counter, and a blood-stained knife upon a wooden bench within a yard of the  

place. The murder was not discovered till Monday morning, when suspicion arose  

from the windows remaining closed. It was supposed she was in the act of settling her  

week's account when the villain entered, as her slate was by her. The halfpence were  

counted up, and left, but the silver and notes had been taken away. 

It having been ascertained that she had been robbed of a new silver watch, No.  

1544, it was described in several newspapers, after the murder, and it led to the  

discovery. One William Cornwell had worked as ostler at the Red Lion Inn Yard, in  

Holborn, but left in consequence of being in debt. He afterwards called in at a public- 

house near Lincoln's Inn Fields, when, on the landlady upbraiding him for leaving the  

neighbourhood without paying his score, he proposed to give the landlord his watch  

for a one-pound bank-note, and to clear off his score of fourteen shillings. He  

afterwards proposed to give the watch and take Mr Davis's old metal watch, and clear  

his score, provided he would give him half-a-crown, which was agreed to. On  

Monday morning the advertisement describing the watch appeared, and the landlord  

gave information at Bow Street of the discovery. Cornwell was in consequence taken  

at Woodford, and the way in which he accounted for having possession of Mrs  

Stephens's watch was that he found it on Sunday morning after the murder, at four  

o'clock, close to the pond near the Castle Inn, when he went to get water for his  

horses. On the Monday, he said, he ascertained that it was Mrs Stephens's watch, but  

did not inform any person, not conceiving that he had any occasion to do so, and that  

he had as much right to it as any other person; but he went to London on Wednesday,  

with an intent to dispose of the watch, and get some clothes. He also confessed that he  

had been at Mrs Stephens's shop on the Saturday evening of the murder, and had seen  

her in the shop about nine o'clock, previous to her shutters being put up. The officer  

then proceeded to the stables of which Cornwell had the care. On a corn-bin he found  

a pair of corded breeches, which had evidently been stained with a considerable  

quantity of blood, and had since been washed. In another part of the stable he found a  

jacket, which had been washed in a similar manner. He took the articles to Cornwell,  

at the Castle Inn, who owned them all except the jacket, which he said was his  

master's, but that he occasionally wore it; the stains on it were from a liquid with  

which he washed his horses' mouths; and the blood on the breeches was, he said,  

occasioned by bleeding a horse. When taken before the magistrate, every person's  

countenance except his own was serious and fixed; but he appeared smiling during the  

whole time; and he did not change countenance when the strongest circumstances  

were stated against him. He was tried at Chelmsford, 6th of August, 1813, and after a  

very laborious and patient investigation, which occupied the Court nearly six hours,  

he was found guilty. The evidence, although merely circumstantial, was nevertheless  

so conclusive-being supported by various corroborative circumstances, as detailed at  

length by eighteen witnesses for the prosecution-that the jury returned their verdict  

without a moment's hesitation. He exhibited the same levity and hardihood during his  

trial which he had shown during the examinations, always persisting in his innocence;  

and upon the judge pronouncing the awful sentence of the law, Cornwell said with a  

convulsive grin: "Thank you, my Lord, and gentlemen." The judge complied with a  

request of the magistrates that he might be executed at Woodford, and upon his arrival  

there he was placed in a private room with the Rev. Mr Kebbel. But, notwithstanding  

the zealous endeavours of that gentleman, he not only declined making any  

confession, but also steadfastly refused to join in prayer, confining himself to the  

same expression he had constantly used prior to his conviction-that he had nothing to  

say, but was innocent of the crime for which he was going to suffer. And these were  

also the last words he uttered under the gallows.

PHILIP NICHOLSON  

Executed on Pennenden Heath, August 23, 1813, for the Murder of Mr and  

Mrs Bonar

PHILIP NICHOLSON, the assassin of Mr and Mrs Bonar, was born near  

Belfast, in Ireland, and was obliged to fly his country for some reason with which we  

are not acquainted. He enlisted in the 12th dragoons, and being a smart active young  

fellow, was chosen for an officer's servant: being wounded in action, he contrived to  

obtain his discharge, and a pension of nine-pence per day.-Having a good character  

from his officers, he procured a situation as servant with the city remembrancer, and  

from thence got into Mr Bonar's family as footman. His father is also a pensioner, and  

lately came from Ireland to receive his pension in Chelsea, where he now resides, and  

works at haymaking. The wretched subject of this paragraph, Philip Nicholson, called  

a few days before he committed the murder at the house of Mr Munro, a respectable  

publican, in Jew's-row, Chelsea, where his father used to call, and to whom both were  

known. He sent for his father, to whom he brought a bundle of clothes, some cold  

roast beef wrapped up in paper, and paid his score in the house. After he quitted the  

house, his father enquired of Mr Munro if his son had ordered him any weekly  

allowance until he received his pension; he was answered that he had not; when his  

father made use of this remarkable expression, "D--n him, the rebel, he was a rebel in  

Belfast, and long since deserved the gallows." The wretched man was a catholic, and  

much bigotted; he constantly attended mass, and regularly said his prayers morning  

and evening. Whilst he was in the public-house, the conversation turned on the  

catholic bill. He lamented much the fate of it in the house of commons, and cursed  

those who opposed it: it is said that when he waited at dinner on his master, Mr  

Thomson Bonar, the day after the bill was lost, he heard Mr Bonar express his high  

satisfaction at the result, and it has been thought Nicholson was resolved to be  

revenged on him; but it appears from his own declaration that this was not the case. 

A more atrocious murder than that which it is now our painful task to relate,  

has not of late years disgraced the criminal annals of this country. It appears that the  

Sunday evening preceding, Mr Bonar went to bed at his usual hour: Mrs Bonar did  

not follow him till two o'clock, when she ordered her female servant to call her at  

seven o'clock in the morning. The servant, as she had been directed, at the appointed  

time went into the bedroom of her master and mistress, and found Mr Bonar mangled  

and dead upon the floor, and her lady wounded, dying, and insensible in her bed. 

Such a scene of horror as the bed-room presented was never before witnessed;  

The first object which met the eye on entering, was the dead body of Mr Bonar, with  

the head and hands dyed with blood: the skull was literally broken into fragments, in  

two or three places; and there was a dreadful laceration across the nose, as if effected  

by the edge of a poker. His hands were mangled in several places, apparently by the  

same instrument: there was also a severe wound on the right knee. From the numerous  

wounds on the body of Mr Bonar, from the swollen state of his mouth, and the  

convulsive adhesion of his hands and knees, it is dear that he had struggled with all  

his force against his horrid murderer.-His nightcap, which lay a few paces from the  

head, was drenched in blood, with a lock of grey hair sticking to it, which seemed to  

have been struck from the skull by the violence of the blow of the poker. The pillow  

of his bed lay at his feet also covered with blood. The manly athletic person of Mr  

Bonar (for though advanced in life he seems to have been a powerful man,) gave an  

increase of horror to this afflicting sight. The view of Mrs Bonar, though equally  

distressing, excited more pity than terror; though her head had been fractured in a  

dreadful manner, yet there was a calm softness in her countenance, more resembling a  

healthy sleep than a violent death: it might have been supposed that her life had parted  

from her without one painful effort. The linen and pillow of the bed in which she lay  

were covered with blood, as was also the bed of Mr Bonar. They slept in small  

separate beds, but placed so close together, that there was scarce room for a person to  

pass between them.  

A bent poker which was lying on the ground, as well as the fractured condition  

of the heads of the unfortunate victims, plainly denoted with what instrument the act  

had been committed. As there were some remains of life in Mrs Bonar, servants were  

sent express to town for surgical assistance. Mr Ashley Cooper arrived with all  

possible dispatch, but it was too late: the wound was mortal, and she expired at eleven  

minutes past one o'clock, having been, during the whole previous time, insensible, and  

only once uttering the exclamation of "Oh! dear!" 

About seven o'clock in the evening, Mr Bonar, jun. arrived from Faversham,  

where he was on duty as colonel of the Kent local militia. In spite of the efforts of Mr  

Angerstein, jun and some other gentlemen, he rushed upstairs, exclaiming, "Let me  

see my father: indeed I must see him." It was impossible to detain him: he burst into  

the bed-chamber, and immediately locked the door after him. Apprehensions were  

entertained for his safety, and the door was broken open, when he was seen kneeling  

with clasped hands over the body of his father. His friends tore him away, and hurried  

him, tottering and fainting, into an adjoining chamber. 

Such are the circumstances connected with the fact of this horrid catastrophe:  

there had been no attempt at robbery, and no motive could be imagined for the  

assassination of two persons who were not only inoffensive, but universally beloved  

for their kindness and benevolence. It is a curious circumstance, that the poker with  

which the crime was evidently perpetrated, does not belong to any part of the house,  

and must have been brought there by the assassin. No part of the house was broken in,  

though it was reported that the house door was found open in the morning. Mrs Bonar,  

as we have already stated, did not retire to bed till two o'clock; and at four o'clock a  

woman, who goes there to wash, let herself in. None of the servants appeared to have  

been alarmed by any cries in the night, but their division of the house is at some  

distance from the wing in which Mr and Mrs Bonar slept. Though the room was  

covered with blood, it appears rather strange, that there was no trace of a bloody  

footstep in the ante-room or hall, and only one or two drops of blood in the hall. 

About seven o'clock in the morning, when the alarm was raised among the  

servants, the footman, Philip Nicholson, rode express to London on one of the best  

horses in the stable: he went first to Mr Ashley Cooper, then to the Red Lion, near  

Bedlam, where he saw Dale, a man who had lately been discharged from the service  

of Mr Bonar, and to whom he used, (as is reported), these remarkable expressions:- 

"The deed is done, and you are suspected: but you are not in it." He then proceeded to  

the office at Bow Street, to give information of the murder, and stated that he had seen  

Dale at the Red Lion, together with what had passed, which induced the officers  

afterwards to go to Dale. Nicholson appeared intoxicated at the office: indeed he had  

been seen to take three glasses of rum at the half-way house. The officers then  

directed him to follow them but lost sight of him in Brydges-street. 

Dale, to whom the officers went, in consequence of what fell from Nicholson,  

had been a butler in the family of Mr Bonar and was discharged about a fortnight ago  

on suspicion of ill conduct. Mrs Bonar, it is said, wished to have him prosecuted, but  

Mr Bonar was content to send him away. He came down with two of the Bow-street  

officers, and underwent an examination before the magistrates, but was dismissed, as  

we understood, because he had clearly established an alibi, shewing that he was at the  

Red Lion from eleven o'clock on Sunday evening till six o'clock on Monday morning.  

He was, therefore, suffered to go away to his wife, who resides in the village of  

Chislehurst. 

The unfortunate subjects of this narration, had resided at Chislehurst about  

eight or nine years: their mansion is called Camden-place, and is remarkable as being  

the spot from which the late Lord Camden, who resided there, took his title. Mr  

Bonar, was upwards of 70 years old. There is not a man to whom a more generally  

favourable testimony could be borne. Both he and his lady died regretted by all ranks  

in the vicinity of their residence. 

Their remains were deposited in the grave at Chislehurst. Their mangled  

corpses were attended through the last ceremonies by Mr and Mrs Bonar, and Miss  

Bonar, the latter the only daughter of the deceased, Mr Hankey, Mr Wiguland, and Mr  

Angerstein, jun., Mr Thomson, Mr Charles Hammersley, Mr George Hammersley,  

and Mr Angerstein, sen., Mr Lockwood, (the rector), Mr Locke, Mr Wollaston, and a  

young lady. The mournful cavalcade moved slowly, attended by undertakers, pages,  

mute, &c. around a part of the heath, and from thence to the church at Chislehurst,  

where, after the performance of the usual rites, the coffins were carried, parallel with  

each other, to the grave. 

The Rev. Mr Lockwood performed the funeral service in a very impressive  

manner: Mr Bonar stood on his right hand, with Mrs Bonar holding one arm, and  

Miss Bonar the other. It was a most afflicting spectacle, and powerfully excited the  

sympathies of a numerous body of spectators. 

Suspicion having fallen on Philip Nicholson, footman to the deceased, a  

warrant was granted by the lord mayor for his apprehension, and Forester, one of the  

city officers, went in quest him. After a diligent inquiry, on Monday, the officer traced  

him to Whitechapel, where he found him on horseback, drinking at the inn door of the  

Three Nuns, with an old acquaintance. The officer laid hold of the bridle of the horse,  

and after a smart scuffle, in which Nicholson received some slight bruises, he was  

secured, and conveyed to Giltspur-street Compter. The prisoner was in a state of  

intoxication, approaching to insanity. Sir Charles Flower, and Mr Ashley Cooper, saw  

him there, and asked him various questions; but nothing like a confession, or  

admission of guilt, could be drawn from him. On the same day he was examined  

before the lord mayor; but such was the drunken state of the prisoner, that a rational  

answer could not be obtained from him, and he was remanded for a further hearing  

next day. 

Tuesday he was again brought to the Mansion house. From the questions put  

to the prisoner, it appeared, that he had conducted himself since the death of his  

master and mistress in the most imprudent and unfeeling manner, which tended more  

to induce suspicion than any other evidence brought against him. He said, that the  

night preceding the murder he went to bed about twelve o'clock, and knew nothing of  

what had happened until called up by the housemaid about eight o'clock next  

morning. He was the only male servant that slept in the house. Some of the windows  

he had fastened inside at the usual hour, and the rest were attended to by the  

housemaid. 

On the murder being discovered, and the servants assembled, he with others  

went to the room where lay his master and mistress. The former was found quite dead  

in a mangled state, and the latter just discovered signs of life; he was able to as certain  

the fact by placing his ear near to the mouth of his mistress. The floor was covered  

with blood and other matter which had come from his master. He conceived he was  

doing right in taking the sheets off his master's bed and with them to clear away the  

nuisance; having done so, he took the soiled linen to the room where he slept. The  

groom was present, and assisted him to pull the upper sheet from his own bed to wrap  

those of his master's in. The sheets altogether he put under his own bed. 

On this point he was close pressed, and was desired to explain his particular  

motive for using the sheets to absorb the blood, and then afterwards to fold them in  

the linen from his own bed, when he ought to have known that in such cases nothing  

should be disturbed about the persons of the deceased. He answered he was ignorant  

of that: what he had done was with the best intent, conceiving as he did that so horrid  

and unpleasant a sight would have been offensive to any person having occasion to  

enter the room. The other servants, he admitted, would touch nothing, and did not  

think themselves justified in doing so. His night shirt, he said, he left in his bed when  

he got up, and might be found. He was then asked as to a foot mark in blood, which  

appeared on the stairs leading from his apartment to that in which the murders were  

committed. He said, if there were any, it might have been done when he went  

backward and forward with the soiled sheets: but he was told, that the mark had been  

seen before he left his room in the first instance. He was stripped and examined in a  

private room, in order to see if he had any bruises about him, which he might have  

received in the conflict with Mr Bonar. Trifling bruises were found on his person,  

particularly one on his forehead; but those were explained to have been received in  

the scuffle with Forester. The city officer being called to this point, admitted that it  

was probable the fresh wound on the prisoner's forehead had been received as stated,  

from the manner in which he came in contact with the ground. 

On being questioned as to his conduct on the way to town, the prisoner  

admitted that he left Chislehurst a little after eight o'clock, and that he refreshed  

himself and the horse three times on the road, himself with three glasses of rum, and  

the horse with three pints of porter; and notwithstanding this, it appeared both from  

his own admission, and from information derived from Mr Ashley Cooper, that he  

performed the whole of his journey in about forty minutes. He first went to Mr  

Cooper to give that gentleman information of his mistress still exhibiting signs of life,  

and after that he went in quest of Dale, a butler, whom Mr Bonar had lately  

discharged from his service for improper conduct. He found him at the Red Lion  

public-house, and told him he was glad he was there, as his master and mistress had  

been murdered, and that he (Dale) was suspected. Nicholson said, he next went to  

give notice at Bow-street of the murders, and to request proper officers might be sent  

down to Chislehurst. 

Here the prisoner was reprimanded for having gone to look after Dale, who  

was at least a suspicious character, before he went to Bow-street, which gave him the  

opportunity, in case had been guilty, of absconding, and eluding justice. After giving  

the necessary information at Bow-street, instead of returning home to Chislehurst, he  

repaired to Whitechapel, to call on his friends, with whom he was making merry when  

he was taken into custody. 

All the questions which were deemed necessary having been put to the  

prisoner, he was sent to Chislehurst, in custody of Adkins and another officer, to give  

evidence before the coroner's jury, who were to sit on the bodies of the deceased at six  

o'clock in the evening. 

The first witness called was Mary Clarke: she had been lady's maid in the  

family for two years, first as servant to Miss Bonar, and afterwards to the old lady.  

Mrs Bonar always retired late to bed, sometimes at one, sometimes at two, and now  

and then, though very seldom at three o'clock. Mr Bonar generally went to bed earlier,  

at about twelve o'clock; the last time she saw him alive, was on Sunday evening, at  

ten o'clock, when he was reading prayers to his servants in his sitting-room. About  

twenty minutes after twelve o'clock, Mrs Bonar rang her bell, and the witness went to  

her in her dressing room, which adjoins the bedchamber; Mrs Bonar said, she had  

ordered the footman, Philip Nicholson, to fasten the lawn door, but that he had not  

done it; witness offered to go and do it, but her mistress said it was unnecessary, as  

she had locked the other door herself, meaning, as the witness supposes, the folding  

door, which is between the lawn door and the hall: witness then went into the room,  

and undressed Mrs Bonar, and warmed her bed; Mr Bonar was then in his bed in the  

same room; the witness then went to her own room as usual, to lie down till Mrs  

Bonar should ring a second time; about twenty minutes past one the bell rang again,  

when witness went into her mistress's dressing-room, and folded up her clothes. Mrs  

Bonar was then in her bed-room; in about a quarter of an hour the bell rang again; her  

mistress was in bed, and the witness gave her the string which communicates with the  

door to open it more or less; she then went out of the room, being first desired to call  

her mistress at half past seven o'clock; she lighted the rushlight as usual, in the ante- 

room, and went to bed, leaving, according to custom, the doors both of the bed room  

and ante-room wide open; witness on going to bed, waked the housemaid who sleeps  

with her, and asked her to call her at half-past seven o'clock: the housemaid waked her  

as she had requested, and told her there was a bad smell in the ante-room coming from  

the bedchamber of her mistress: and asked the witness whether she had lit the  

rushlight, which was gone, and whether she had locked the door of the ante-room on  

the outside: at the same time she told the witness that there were footmarks in the  

ante-room. Witness immediately was much alarmed, and cried out (as she is told, for  

she was too much agitated to have any recollection of the circumstance) that there had  

been murder. The unusual circumstances which had been mentioned to her induced  

her to think that something dreadful had been done. She went upstairs with the  

housemaid, and knelt down on the floor of the ante-room, to see what the marks were,  

and thought they looked like blood: she did not know whether she then looked into the  

bed-room; but thought she did, and saw the toilet thrown over and some things lying  

on the floor. Witness then went to the wash-house, to the laundry-maid, and asked her  

to go back with her, to see what was the matter; they proceeded together to the bed- 

room, when the laundry-maid went in and opened one of the window-shutters, when,  

on looking back, she clapped her hands together and screamed: witness saw the bed  

clothes and other things on the floor: she then ran downstairs, leaving the laundry- 

maid behind: in the servant's-hall, she saw the coachman, who made her sit down, as  

she was fainting: when she recovered herself, she saw the footman, Nicholson,  

coming into the servant's-hall, with what she thought were bloody sheets in his hands;  

he took a sheet from his bed, and folded the bloody sheet or sheets in it: the footman  

then said to witness, "Mrs Clarke, go to your mistress, she is still alive, perhaps she  

may be recovered;" she then ran upstairs, and saw her master's body covered with, she  

believed, a blanket on the floor; her mistress was in bed, and still breathing; did not  

see her mistress afterwards, till she was dead; had not seen the footman since. 

Susannah Curnick was next sworn: she had been a housemaid in the family  

three weeks last Saturday: the footman was in the place before she came: she never  

heard him express any anger or disappointment against her master: she put the  

rushlight in its usual place in the ante-room about ten o'clock: it was cracked about  

half way down: she went to bed between ten and eleven: she remembered Mrs Clarke  

coming to bed, and desiring to be called at half-past seven: she rose herself about hall- 

past six, leaving Mrs Clarke in bed: in passing through the hall she observed the house  

door about half open, a circumstance she had never seen before: the shut the door, and  

then went to the lawn door, which was shut, but the shutters were open. The window  

shutters in the library were all closed: she then went into the drawing-room, where all  

the windows were shut but one in the centre, which was wide open: she went upstairs,  

and found the ante-room locked, with the key outside: she opened the door, and saw  

foot-marks on the floor, and the rushlight gone from its stand. She then repaired to her  

own room to call Mrs Clarke, to whom she told the circumstances which she had  

witnessed. Mrs Clarke exclaimed in great alarm and agitation, "Then my master and  

mistress are murdered!" She helped Mrs Clarke on with her gown, and they went  

together to the bed-room. Mrs C was afraid to go in, and witness did not go in, as she  

had never been accustomed so to do. They knelt down and saw that the footsteps were  

bloody. They then went together to the pantry. Witness did not go up again till after  

the footman came down with the sheets. The footman cried out for assistance, saying  

his mistress was not yet dead. She saw him with the sheet or sheets covered with  

blood, which he wrapt up in something, she does not know what. The footman left the  

bundle in the hall, and said he would go to Mr Ashley Cooper, and for his master's  

partner, as he said he was, the properest person to know what had happened. He then  

went down the yard with the coachman. The poker in the bed-room lay between her  

master and the blanket, on the floor. She had never seen it before. All the pokers  

belonging to the house were in their place. Had never seen anything particular in the  

footman's conduct. Saw him both before and after the discovery in the morning; he  

appeared sober. He looked rather sharp at her when he first passed, but that was usual  

with him when anyone passed him. 

Penelope Folds had been laundry-maid in the family fifteen years. She rose a  

little after four o'clock on the Monday morning, and soon after the washerwoman  

came, who let herself in by the laundry door. About half-past seven Mrs Clarke came  

to witness in the laundry, and said she was afraid something was amiss; and asked  

witness to go upstairs with her. She did so, and went into the bed-room, and opened  

part of one of the window shutters. She saw her master's body lying on the floor, and  

blood on her mistress's pillow. She came downstairs and went up again, when she saw  

the footman covering her master with a blanket, and then stooping, as if meddling  

with the clothes on her master's bed: she found her mistress still breathing; she  

afterwards saw the footman wrapping up the sheets, taken from his master's room, in a  

sheet pulled from his own bed; he had not been desired by anyone to do so; he said  

that Mrs Bonar was still alive; he was the first who made this remark: it was not made  

to him: he said he must go to town, though she desired him not to leave the house  

without a man in it. 

William Evans, the groom, had been in the service of the family since  

December. He was in the house till after twelve o'clock on Sunday evening, sitting  

with the footman, and never saw him in better humour. He had never heard him say  

anything disrespectful of his master or mistress, except now and then an angry  

expression at being overworked,-such as "the old woman, she wears me out." When  

the examination of this witness was finished, he begged to state a circumstance which  

he had just recollected. He said that he saw the footman dabbing the sheets in the  

blood, at the foot of the bed. Being pressed upon this point, he said that the  

housemaid, who was in the room at the time, could tell more about it. 

Susan Curnick being called, said that she never was in the room with the  

footman, as stated by the groom; she said also, that the groom had exclaimed, at the  

foot of his mistress's bed, with a dreadful expression, "This comes of keeping  

company with the Jews." 

W. Randall had been coachman in the family for eight years: slept over the  

stables; came to the house about half-past seven, and went to call Nicholson; found  

him sitting on his bed-side; almost immediately heard the cry of murder from the  

female servants. It was not long before he saw Nicholson come downstairs with  

bloody linen, and wrap it up in a sheet in the servants' hall. The footman was a very  

quiet, good fellow-servant, but used, when he had money, to get drunk. The rest of the  

servants observed they could not have handled the sheets as Nicholson did. Nicholson  

was very anxious to go to London, and would have a horse. Coachman thought  

Nicholson wild-looking when he went away, and appeared as if he could not ride,  

though he had been in the dragoons. 

Charles King had been a labourer for seven years in the family: slept in Green- 

lane, Chislehurst; came to work at between five and six on Monday morning. The  

washerwomen were up: he came to the house about twenty minutes alter six, got into  

the house by the laundry, went into the hall, and found the front door open. Philip was  

then in bed; he went to him and said, "How is it you sleep with the door and window- 

shutters open?" He answered, "I did not know that they were open." I am sure he was  

in bed with his shirt on. 

Williams, a washerwoman, came to the house about four in the morning. The  

hall windows were all open. 

Philip Shillington, the gardener, got up between three and four o'clock. About  

four o'clock observed the middle drawingroom window open, which he did not shut. 

Philip Nicholson was then called, and asked what he had to state. He replied,  

nothing but what he had said before the lord mayor. The windows of his bed-room  

were shut when he went to bed. No further questions were asked of him, and he was  

ordered into the custody of Lavender. 

Mr Smith, another witness, came over on the morning of the murder, and saw  

the bodies and bent poker. He then went to the servants'-hall, and found a bundle,  

which he opened: it consisted of two bloody sheets, the one fine and the other coarse,  

which was the most bloody of the two: they were wrapped in a third, which was  

scarcely stained. He gave the two bloody sheets to a servant called Sweetapple, to  

take to Mr Bonar's room. A candlestick in Mr B.'s room was bent and broken. There  

was a small spot of white paint on the poker. 

Lavender, the Bow-street officer, stated, that he arrived on Monday about one  

o'clock: he found a pair of shoes by the side of the footman's bed, which he compared  

with the traces in the ante-room, and, as he thought, the impressions corresponded  

with the shoes: the shoes are not fellows; a night cap was found on the footman's bed,  

with some stains, apparently bloody. 

Foy, of Marlborough-street, compared the shoes, which he had found on  

Tuesday morning in a closet in the servants'-hall, with the foot traces, and found they  

tallied: the shoes were odd; one common heeled, and worn at the toe; the other with a  

spring heel, as was the case with the shoes which Lavender found; there was blood  

both on the soles and the upper leather. He had just shewn them to Nicholson, who  

acknowledged them to be his, and said he believed one of them had slipt off in the  

room from which he fetched the sheets. Foy found them together in the cupboard.  

Nicholson had also acknowledged the night-cap, and said he supposed the bloody  

stains came from the blood on the sheets. 

The groom was called again, and said he found the shoes that morning, in the  

closet where he went to look for a stick to beat Mr Bonar's coat; he saw they were  

bloody, and shewed them to King, and then put them back again. 

King confirmed this statement. 

The poker was then produced: it was bent in the upper part: it was a common  

kitchen poker, about two feet four inches long. 

The inquest closed their sitting at one o'clock on Wednesday morning, and  

returned a verdict of wilful murder against Philip Nicholson, the footman. At twelve  

o' clock, news was brought before the court that the vile assassin had cut his throat  

The utmost consternation prevailed at the time, lest suicide should prevent the  

vengeance of the law, for this unparalleled murder, which plunged a virtuous family  

into the deepest affliction, and occasioned an irreparable loss to the surrounding poor.  

The wretched man had secreted a razor from the butler's pantry, where he was first  

confined, in the pocket of his small-clothes, and cut his throat whilst in the water- 

closet. A surgeon, who attended the inquest was at hand, who immediately sewed up  

the wound, which bled most profusely. An express was also sent off for surgeon  

Ashley Cooper, who arrived in haste. The wound had not much injured the windpipe,  

but, although deep, it inclined upwards under the chin, it is remarkable, that none of  

the servants ever heard the fellow complain of either his master or his mistress,  

excepting, to use the expression of the groom, he had complained as other servants  

sometimes did, of being harassed by his mistress having the carriage out so often. It is  

evident the assassin disguised himself in one of the sheets of his own bed when he  

committed the diabolical assault on his amiable master and mistress, from the blood  

upon it, but happily, for the detection of his enormous crime, he left his sheet in the  

room, which accounts for his anxiety to get the bloody sheets out of his master's  

chamber. 

He had been in the custody of two officers of Bow-street, and of the city, and  

had been permitted by them to enter the abovementioned closet in the passage leading  

to the servants'-hall; and cut his throat the moment he was released. The gash was so  

deep and dreadful in appearance, and he bled so copiously, that it was supposed he  

could not live many minutes. The wound was so large, that an hand might have been  

inserted in it: the head seemed almost severed from the body. But fortunately, Mr  

Roberts, and Mr Holt, surgeons, of Bromley, were in attendance; and the latter  

gentleman immediately rushed forward, and seized the gushing arteries with both his  

hands, and, with great presence of mind, contrived to stop the blood with his mere  

grasp and pressure, till more regular means could be applied. An express was sent to  

Mr Ashley Cooper, who arrived in three hours; and it was the opinion of this  

gentleman, as well as of the surgeons of Bromley, after dressing the wound, that the  

man would recover. At seven o'clock on Wednesday evening, he was in a favourable  

state. He had for some hours, been able to speak, though he had said very little: he  

would make no confession, nor give any explanation, but persisted in declaring his  

innocence. To a question put to him by Mr Angerstein, jun. in the presence of Mr  

Bonar, whether he had any concern in the horrid murder? he looked directly in the  

face of the inquirer, who he seemed to know perfectly, but moved his head slightly as  

if denying all knowledge of it. He appeared calm and composed during the whole  

period that he was sensible; but there was a fixedness and determination in his  

countenance, from which it may not unfairly be inferred, that he would, if possible,  

have repeated his attempt at suicide. Very strict precautions were accordingly  

observed to prevent such an attempt. He was laid down enveloped in a strait- 

waistcoat, his arms being likewise held by two persons, one on each side of him; his  

head also was kept in a steady posture, to prevent any motion which he might make to  

open or increase the wound. An officer of Bow-street and servants were always in the  

room to watch him. 

He persisted for a considerable time in asserting his innocence, but on Monday  

the 7th of June he confessed himself to be the perpetrator of this atrocious murder. On  

that day he was visited by several persons of distinction, among whom were lord  

Castlereagh, lord Camden, and lord Robert Seymour, and showed repeated symptoms  

of annoyance and agitation: this circumstance, together with the attempt to make him  

look more cleanly, caused his wound suddenly to bleed afresh. This happened about  

seven o'clock in the evening. The haemorrhage being of an alarming nature, an  

express was immediately dispatched for Mr A. Cooper. He arrived about eleven  

o'clock: Mr Bramston, the priest, came about the same time with Mr Bonar. The  

wound was dressed, and nothing farther then took place. Tuesday morning at half-past  

six o'clock, Nicholson voluntarily requested Mr Bramston, who had been with him a  

short time, to bring Mr Bonar to him immediately. Mr Bonar went to him, when  

Nicholson burst into tears, and begging pardon of Mr Bonar, expressed his wish to  

make a full confession. Mr Wells, the magistrate, who resides at Brickley house, in  

the neighbourhood, was sent for: and in the presence of the magistrate, and other  

gentlemen, Nicholson made, and afterwards signed, a deposition, acknowledging  

himself to be the murderer. 

He stated, that on Sunday night, after the groom left him, he fell asleep upon a  

form in the servants'-hall, the room where he was accustomed to lie: that he awoke at  

three o'clock by dropping from the form: he jumped up, and was instantly seized with  

an idea, which he could not resist, that he would murder his master and mistress: he  

was at this time half undressed; he threw off his waistcoat, and pulled a sheet from his  

bed, with which he wrapped himself up: he then snatched a poker from the grate of  

the servants'-hall, and rushed upstairs to his master's room: he made directly to his  

mistress's bed, and struck her two blows on the head; she neither spoke nor moved: he  

then went round to his master's bed, and struck him once across the face: Mr Bonar  

was roused, and from the confusion produced by the stunning violence of the blow,  

imagined that Mrs Bonar was then coming to bed, and spoke to that effect: that when  

he immediately repeated the blow, Mr Bonar sprung out of bed, and grappled with  

him for fifteen minutes, and at one time was nearly getting the better of him; but being  

exhausted by loss of blood, he was at length overpowered: Nicholson then left him  

groaning on the floor. He went downstairs, stript himself naked, and washed himself  

all over with a sponge, at the sink in the butler's pantry. He next went and opened the  

windows of the drawing-room, that it might be supposed some person had entered the  

house that way: he then took his shirt and stockings which were covered with blood  

(the sheet he had left in his master's room), went out at the front door and concealed  

his bloody linen in a bush, covering it with leaves: the bush was opposite the door,  

and not many yards from it: he then returned without shutting the outer door, and  

went to the servants'-hall: he opened his window-shutters and went to bed (it was not  

yet four o'clock): he did not sleep, though he appeared to be asleep when King came  

for the purpose of waking him at half-past six o'clock. He stated, in the most solemn  

manner, that no person whatever was concerned with him in this horrid deed; and to a  

question put to him, whether he had any associate, answered, "How could he, when he  

never in his life before the moment of his jumping up from the form, entertained the  

thought of murder." He can assign no motive for what he did: he had no enmity or ill- 

will of any kind against Mr or Mrs Bonar. 

This deposition was regularly given before the magistrate, and attested by Mr  

A. Cooper, Mr Herbert Jenner, the Rev. Mr Lockwood, Mr Ilott, and Mr Bonar. 

It appears that Nicholson had been drinking a great quantity of the beer of the  

house during the Sunday; and though it is not stated that he was intoxicated, yet the  

quantity might have had some effect on his senses. 

In consequence of Nicholson's information, search was made for the linen, and  

it was found in a laurel bush close to the house covered with leaves, except about two  

inches: the stockings were very bloody, and the shirt was rent almost to rags about the  

neck and front. 

Nicholson, who, before the confession, looked gloomy and fierce, was  

afterwards perfectly calm, and had even an air of satisfaction in his countenance. 

He was tried at the following Maidstone assizes, and within a few minutes  

after the doors were opened the court-house was completely crowded. 

Exactly at eight o'clock, Mr Justice Heath was on the bench, and Nicholson  

was immediately brought to the bar. His looks were sad and gloomy, but upon the  

whole his appearance was composed. He was indicated for petty treason. The  

indictment differed from a common indictment for murder, by an averment, stating,  

that Nicholson was servant to Mr Bonar, and that he traitorously as well as feloniously  

murdered his master. He pleaded Not Guilty, in consequence, he said, of the  

persuasions of several persons. 

Mr Roberts opened the pleadings; after which Mr serjeant Shepherd rose and  

addressed the jury. 

The evidence of the witnesses did not differ materially from that given on the  

inquest, and we think it therefore unnecessary to detail it. The examination being  

concluded his confession was read, which also corroborates their testimony. 

DECLARATION OF NICHOLSON: I, Philip Nicholson, to clear the  

innocence of others, and tell the truth of myself, I committed the murder. 

Question by Mr B.-Had you accomplices?-No, Sir, I would tell you if I had. 

I do not mean accomplices in the room, but others?-No, Sir, I did not know it  

myself five minutes before. 

Explain how it happened.-I was sleeping upon the form, and waked about  

three o'clock; I put the sheet around me, and took the poker from the hall-grate, and a  

lighted candle in my hand from the hall.-I entered the room, I looked about when I  

entered, and gave my mistress two blows; she never moved. I left her, and went round  

to master, and gave him two or three blows; and he said, "Come to bed, my love," and  

then he sprung from the bed and seized hold of me. I hit him in the struggle about the  

arms and legs; we struggled fifteen minutes or better, he was very near getting the  

better of me; I got him down by force, and left him groaning. I went down to wash my  

hands in the sink of the butler's pantry, and then opened the house-door, and drawing- 

room windows. 

What motive had you?-I had no bad intention: I did not know what provoked  

me to do it, more than you do. 

You were heard to complain of going so much behind the carriage?-Yes; but I  

never thought of doing it from that. 

Did you ever feel resentment for going so much behind the carriage?-No, Sir;  

I never thought much about it. 

Had you thought or talked of this murder when you were drinking with the  

groom the night before in the hall?-No: I never thought of it myself, or had any idea  

of it myself. 

How long was it after you waked that you went upstairs?-I jumped up: I was  

half undressed when sleeping upon the form: I undressed, and put the sheet about me. 

Why did you put the sheet about you?-That they might not know me. 

When did you drop the sheet-In the struggle: I had it on when I gave the first  

blow. 

By Mr A. C.-Did Dale the butler know anything about it?-No, Sir. 

Did any of the maid-servants know anything about it?-Not a word. 

Why did you go to Dale in London?-Nothing particular. 

Was it your intention to take anything away?-No, Sir. 

What was your intention?-Nothing particular: but when I went into the room I  

saw my master and mistress asleep, and I gave her two blows. 

Were you drunk when you went to bed?-No, Sir. I had drunk nothing but beer.  

I had not had a drop of spirits all day. 

Had you at any former time thought of this murder?-No, Sir, I never thought  

of such a thing in my life. 

What did you do with your bloody things?-My shirt, neckcloth, and stockings,  

I put opposite the hall-door, in the shrubbery, under some leaves, near the little gate.  

The breeches I kept on all day. When I waked from the form, I only took off my  

waistcoat. 

What did you wipe your hands with?-With the sponge in the sink, which I left  

there. 

What did you do with your shoes? Did you put them into the wood closet?-I  

might; but I do not remember. 

What did you do with the rushlight?-I threw it into the coal closet. 

Why did you take the rushlight?-It was dark in the house. 

Why did you think it was three o'clock?-By the break of day. 

Why did you open the shutters of your room?-To shew me light. 

Was it to see your clothes?-No, I had seen them by the rushlight in coming  

downstairs. 

Did you go to sleep after committing this act?-I went to bed, but could not  

sleep. I was awake when King entered the room. 

In the presence of Almighty God, thinking I am on my death-bed, I hereby  

declare this to be my voluntary confession, to prevent innocent people being accused  

of this circumstance. 

(Signed) 

PHILIP NICHOLSON.  

Acknowledged as the signature of Philip Nicholson, before me, June 8, 1813. 

(Signed) JOHN WELLS. 

We whose names are hereto subscribed, do attest this to be the voluntary  

declaration and signature of the within named Philip Nicholson. Signed before me,  

one of his majesty's justices of the peace for the county of Kent. (Signed) 

JOHN WELLS,  

T. BONAR,  

THOS. ILOTT,  

ASTLEY COOPER,  

JOHN CUTTS LOCKWOOD,  

HERBERT JENNER.  

Chislehurst, June 8. 

We, whose names are hereto subscribed, do attest, that we were present, when  

his shirts and stockings, mentioned in the above declaration, were found in the  

situation described. 

(Signed) JOHN WELLS, J. CUTTS LOCKWOOD, HERBERT JENNER,  

STEPHEN LAVENDER. 

Chislehurst, June 8, 1813. 

Lavender, after the confession, searched and found the clothes nearly in the  

place described; (the shirt was much torn and bloody, and also the stockings); they  

were produced. 

Thomas Ilott, surgeon, was then called: on the 31st of May he went to  

Chislehurst: went into Mr Bonar's room: saw his skull fractured: the teeth loosened,  

and jaw broken: saw a poker, which he had no doubt was the instrument of his death. 

The prisoner being called upon for his defence, merely asked, whether Mr Ilott  

had any doubt of the truth of the confession? 

Mr Ilott-Certainly not. 

The prisoner then called Mr Frederick Tyrrell as a witness to his character,  

who said he was the son of the city remembrancer: the prisoner had lived three years  

with his father, and his conduct during that time was humane and gentle: he appeared  

to be a man of a kind disposition. 

Cross-examined by Mr Gurney-said the prisoner was turned away from his  

father's service for drunkenness: he had frequently seen him drunk, but not  

outrageous: it was not considered safe to retain him. 

Re-examined as to this last point-he said that he was no further unsafe than  

any other drunken person, on account of the risk from lights, &c. 

Mr Justice Heath then summed up the evidence: he said he never knew a case  

more clearly proved; even of circumstances there was so well connected a series as  

must carry conviction, independently of the confession: the bloody footsteps; the  

conduct and demeanour of the prisoner; his taking the sheets; his night-cap stained  

with blood, which could not have happened in the way he said, because when he  

brought down the sheets in the morning he was dressed, and had no night-cap; and the  

bloody shoes, which exactly corresponded with the footmarks. 

All these things seemed to remove all doubt; and then, the confession  

confirmed all these circumstances. If, however, the jury had any doubt, they would  

acquit the prisoner. 

The jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty. 

The prisoner was then addressed in the usual form, and asked what he had to  

say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. He said "he had nothing to  

offer." 

Mr Justice Heath then proceeded to pass sentence nearly in the following  

terms: -- 

"Prisoner, after a minute trial, you have been convicted by a jury of your  

country of traitorously murdering your master; whom, instead of attacking, it was  

your duty to protect at the peril of your life. What was your motive for so atrocious a  

crime does not appear: it does not seem to have been revenge; you were not  

intoxicated, nor offended at your master, against whom it was impossible to feel  

resentment, for his whole life was a series of kindness and beneficences, for which he  

is now gone to receive his reward. You, Nicholson, must soon appear before a tribunal  

more awful than this: and I solemnly recommend you to employ the short interval  

which remains to you, in making your peace with Heaven. Nothing that I can say can  

aggravate the sense of your guilt in the minds of this assembly. I shall, therefore,  

proceed to discharge my duty in passing upon you the sentence of the law, which is,  

that you be taken hence to the place from whence you came, and on Monday next be  

drawn on a sledge to the place of execution, and there hanged till you are dead, and  

then your body shall be given to be dissected and anatomized." 

Immediately after the sentence, the prisoner put in a paper, and desired it to be  

read. The judge said this was irregular, but looked at the paper, and told the jury that it  

contained a confession of crime, which was imputed to excessive drinking. 

The prisoner, during his trial and the sentence, appeared more sorry and  

ashamed than agitated: his manner was at once dejected and firm. He was  

immediately after the trial re-conveyed to prison. 

The paper which he put in and desired to be read after his sentence, was as  

follows: -- 

"I acknowledge, with the deepest contrition, the justice of the sentence unto  

death which has just passed upon me. My crimes are, indeed, most heavy; I feel their  

weight, but I do not despair; nay, I humbly hope for mercy, through the infinite mercy  

of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who bled and died for me. In order to have a  

well-grounded hope in him, my all-merciful Redeemer, I know that it is my bounden  

duty not only to grieve from my heart for my dire offences, but also to do my utmost  

to make satisfaction for them. Yet, alas what satisfaction can I make to the afflicted  

family of my master and mistress, whom, without any provocation, I so barbarously  

murdered?-I can make none beyond the declaration of my guilt, and honor of soul  

that I could perpetrate deeds so shocking to human nature, and so agonizing to the  

feelings of that worthy family. I implore their forgiveness, for God's sake; and, fully  

sensible of their great goodness, I do hope that, for his sake, they will forgive me. I  

freely give up my life a just forfeit to my country, whose laws I have most  

scandalously outraged. Departing from this tribunal, I shall soon appear before  

another tribunal, where an eternal sentence will be passed upon me. With this dread  

sentence full in my view, I do most solemnly declare, and I desire this declaration to  

be taken as my dying words, that I alone was the base and cruel murderer of my  

master and mistress; that I had no accomplice; that no one knew or could possibly  

suspect that I intended to perpetrate those barbarities; that I myself had no intention of  

committing those horrid deeds, save for a short time, so short as scarcely to be  

computed before I actually committed them: that booty was not the motive of my fatal  

cruelties; I am sure the idea of plunder never presented itself to my mind: I can  

attribute those unnatural murders to no other cause than, at the time of their  

commission, a temporary fury from excessive drinking; and before that time to the  

habitual forgetfulness, for many years, of the Great God and his judgments; and the  

too natural consequence of such forgetfulness, the habitual yielding to the worst  

passions of corrupted nature: so that the evil that I was tempted to do, that I did: the  

Lord in his mercy has, nevertheless, spared until now my life-that life which I, in an  

agony of horror and despair, once most wickedly attempted to destroy: he has most  

graciously allowed me time for repentance; an humble and contrite heart must be his  

gift-that gift I hope he has granted to my most ardent supplications;-in that hope, and  

bearing in mind his promise, that an humble and contrite heart he will not despise, I  

freely offering up to him my sufferings, and my life itself, look forward, through his  

most precious blood, to the pardon of all my crimes, my manifold and most enormous  

crimes, and most humbly trust that the same mercy which he shewed to the penitent  

thief who was crucified with him, he will shew to me: thus meekly confiding in thee,  

O Jesus, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Amen.  

This 20th August, 1813,  

PHILIP NICHOLSON. 

The signature was in Nicholson's hand-writing: the rest appeared written by  

another hand. 

After sentence of death was passed, Nicholson was placed in the condemned  

cell, which, in the Maidstone gaol is under ground, and the approach to it is dark and  

dreary, down many steps. In this cell Mr Bonar had an interview with the prisoner, at  

half-past five on Monday morning. On his approaching the cell, he found Nicholson  

on his knees at prayer. 

At about twelve o'clock, the preparations for the removal of Nicholson being  

nearly completed, Mr Bonar, accompanied by his brother, and Mr Bramston, the  

Catholic clergyman, had another interview with the unfortunate man: soon after  

which, the hurdle or sledge, which was in the shape of a shallow box about six feet by  

three, was drawn up to the gaol door: at each end was a seat just capable of holding  

two persons. Nicholson, double-ironed, was first placed in it, with his back to the  

horses; he was also pinioned with ropes, and round his shoulders was coiled the fatal  

cord; by his side sat the executioner; opposite to the prisoner the Rev. Mr Bramston  

took his seat, and by his side sat one of the Maidstone jailers with a loaded  

blunderbuss. Everything being in readiness, the procession advanced at a very slow  

pace towards Pennenden-heath, which is distant from Maidstone nearly a mile and an  

half, on which was erected a temporary new drop, which had a platform raised about  

seven feet from the ground, and was large enough to contain about a dozen persons. A  

little before two o'clock the hurdle arrived, and stopped immediately under the  

gallows, when Mr Bramston and Nicholson knelt down on it, and remained for some  

time in prayer. Some time previous to this Mr Bonar arrived on the ground in a post- 

chaise, and took his stand within twelve yards of the fatal spot, with the front  

windows full on the gallows, and which he kept open during the whole time: but each  

of the side windows was closed by blinds. So anxious was Mr Bonar to get from the  

unfortunate wretch his very dying words, as to whether he had either motive or  

accomplice, that a person was deputed to ascend the platform after the cord was round  

the prisoner's neck, and to ask him the following questions: -- 

Q. "Now that you have not many moments to live, is all that you have stated,  

namely, that you had no motive that you can tell of, nor had you any accomplice  

true?"-A. "All that I have stated is true." 

"Then there is no creature living on earth who had anything to do with the  

murder but yourself?"-"No, no one." 

"You had no accomplices? "-"None." 

"Had you any antipathy to either your master or mistress before you  

committed the horrid murder?"-Clasping his hands together as well as his heavy irons  

would permit him, "As God is in heaven, it was a momentary thought, as I have  

repeatedly declared before." 

The above were the last words of this unhappy man: in a few minutes after  

they were uttered, the bottom of the platform, which, we have before stated, was  

constructed like one of the new drops, was let fall, and Nicholson was launched into  

eternity. 

He died unusually hard, being greatly convulsed. After hanging an hour, the  

body was put into a post-chaise, which drove off in the direction for Bromley. 

Nicholson ascended the gallows by a ladder, with a firm step, and remained  

unshaken to the last moment of his existence. He was asked repeatedly during the  

morning of Monday how he felt himself, and his answers were, that he had never felt  

himself so comfortable since the commission of the crime: that he died with a full  

persuasion that he had made his peace with God Almighty, there cannot be a doubt:  

he assured all who spoke to him of his hope of salvation, and said, so firmly was his  

mind made up, and so satisfied was he to die, that if a free pardon were to be laid  

down to him, he would much rather die than accept of it. The number of persons  

assembled to witness the execution was immense. 

The following is a copy of Nicholson's will, which he made while in prison:-- 

"It is the wish and desire of me, the undersigned Philip Nicholson, now in  

custody of the governor of the House of correction of the county of Middlesex, that  

the wearing apparel, and other my property and effects, may be disposed of and given  

to the persons after named: viz, my wearing apparel, of whatever kind it may be, to  

my father, Patrick Nicholson. 

"To my said father, Patrick Nicholson, the sum of four pounds to defray his  

expenses home to Ireland. 

"And all the rest and residue of my property, linen, monies, and effects  

whatsoever, to my mother, Bridget Nicholson, 

As witness my hand this 17th day of August, 1813.  

PHILIP NICHOLSON.  

Witness THOS. WEBBE, I. HENSON.  

And I authorise and empower Mr Webbe to see that my above wish and desire  

is carried into execution  

PHILIP NICHOLSON.

W. H. HOLLINGS  

Executed for the Murder of Elizabeth Pitcher

The Superstitious Application of the Dead Hand of Hollings

THIS man's conduct was at once infamous and extravagant. He had been in  

the excise, where he became acquainted with one Pitcher, also an excise officer, who  

on his death bed recommended his wife and daughter, Elizabeth, to the care and  

protection of his friend Hollings. 

The friend of the father was caressed by the mother and daughter. The latter  

lived servant with Mr Cartwright, in Lower Grosvenor Street, where Hollings had  

been in the habit of calling on her. Notwithstanding that he had a wife of his own,  

who did not live with him, and was fifty years of age, without any personal  

recommendation whatever, he had the infamous audacity to annoy this poor girl with  

his fulsome addresses, which she appears to have rejected altogether, as an honest and  

virtuous young woman should do. 

For refusing to entertain his abominable passion, Hollings meditated the ruin  

of this unfortunate girl, who was only in her twentieth year. On July 4th he went in the  

evening to the house of her master, and asked for Betsy; she came out to him, and  

closed the door after her; they had continued together for a few minutes when the  

report of a pistol was heard, and the butler, running out, saw Hollings supporting the  

poor girl, who had been shot through the heart, a wound of immense size being made  

in her side, from which flowed a copious discharge of blood. 

Hollings did not attempt to escape. He held another pistol in his hand, which  

was found loaded to the muzzle, and the other had burst into a thousand pieces,  

having been similarly charged. On the steps lay a broken phial, containing arsenic and  

water, which Hollings thought to have taken, but the explosion of the pistol had  

scattered it out of his hands. When the patrol came up, he said, "Don't seize me; I  

shall not attempt to go away." He also asked "if Elizabeth was dead, and if he might  

be permitted to kiss her cold lips." 

When taken to the watch-house, he said he was in love with the deceased; and  

that he had sacrificed her for refusing to comply with his wishes. Being asked what  

those were, he refused to give any explanation. During the night he drank four or five  

quarts of water, and vomited very much, occasioned by the poison he had taken,  

which, not being sufficient to cause death, only made him sick. His intention was,  

having shot the unfortunate girl, to poison himself; but the explosion of the pistol  

defeated his intentions. 

On Friday, September the 6th, he was indicted at the Old Bailey, and tried,  

after the diabolical murderer Mitchell. The facts of the murder having been proved,  

several witnesses deposed to various acts of insanity committed by the prisoner,  

during the last twelve months. He had been discharged from the excise in  

consequence of his strange conduct; and certainly there appeared sufficient evidence  

to lead to an opinion that he was under the dominion of occasional insanity. But his  

whole conduct, with regard to murder, was atrociously consistent. He had loaded the  

pistols on purpose, provided the poison, and procured the presence of his victim, by  

pretending that he had a message for her. All these, taken into account, left no room to  

doubt but at the time of the horrid deed he was perfectly sane. He was accordingly  

found Guilty; after which Hollings addressed the court. He acknowledged that he had  

been fairly tried, and justly convicted. He hoped his fate would be a warning to all  

who heard his case against the indulgence of violent passions: he had loved-fervently  

loved-the unhappy girl whose life he had taken away. His offence was great; but he  

hoped for mercy, through the Saviour of mankind. 

On Monday morning, September 19th, 1814, Mitchell and Hollings were  

executed in front of Newgate. So great was the public curiosity to see the unfortunate  

malefactors, that at seven o'clock on Monday morning the Old Bailey and Giltspur  

Street were crowded to a degree almost unprecedented. Much money was given for  

indifferent seats at the top of the houses opposite the debtors' door; and carts,  

waggons, and other vehicles, were in requisition. It appears that Mitchell entertained  

some hopes of acquittal, as he was often heard to say, "There was no corroborating  

proof of his having fired the pistol." At a quarter before eight the prisoners were  

introduced to the Press Yard, for the purpose of having their irons knocked off,  

accompanied by the Reverend Mr Cotton and the Reverend Mr Frere, the latter of  

whom sat up in constant prayer all night with Hollings, who joined most fervently in  

the devotion. Mitchell, who was dressed in black, was first brought out from the cell;  

he looked pale, and maintained a deportment of sullen resignation; he did not say a  

word, nor did he betray the slightest symptoms of feeling at his awful situation. He  

appeared regardless of any earthly transaction. The irons being knocked off, and the  

usual awful ceremony of tying the hands being executed, he lifted his hands as far as  

he was permitted, and, looking up, bowed, and appeared to be in prayer. Hollings  

stepped forward to the block with an activity which at first reminded us of the  

unhappy man. He was, however, very tranquil; and, upon being disencumbered of his  

irons, addressed the persons around him in nearly the following words: "Here, you  

see, I stand, a victim to passion and barbarity: my crime is great; and I acknowledge  

the justice of my sentence. But oh! the unfortunate girl I loved, I adored, as one of my  

own. I have made contrition, and prayed for forgiveness; I resign myself, under an  

impression that Almighty God has heard my prayers, and will forgive me: may you  

and the world take warning by my example; and here I confess the justice of my fate- 

receive my soul, O God!" At the last expression his feelings overcame him, and he  

wept. 

The whole of the awful arrangements being complete, they were ushered to the  

fatal scaffold. Mitchell was until this time firm and unconcerned: he was prayed to by  

Mr Cotton. He became much agitated, and the horrors of death were strongly  

portrayed in his countenance. Hollings shook hands with the officers of justice,  

declared to Mr Frere that he was quite happy, and mounted the scaffold with great  

firmness and resignation. The clergyman continued to pray to them until the fatal  

signal was given, when the drop fell. Mitchell continued in the strongest convulsions  

for several minutes, and appeared to die very hard. 

After they had hung some time, three females were introduced, for the  

application of "the dead man's hand," supposed to remove marks, wens, etc. The first  

was a young woman of interesting appearance, who was so much affected by the  

ceremony that she was obliged to be supported. 

At nine the bodies were cut down, and sent to St. Bartholomew's Hospital for  

dissection.

THOMAS SHARPE  

Executed October 31, 1814, for the horrid murder in Kentish Town

WE have seldom heard of a more atrocious murder than that of Elizabeth  

Dobbins, a poor washerwoman, residing at Millfield Farm, in Kentish Town. Her  

mangled remains were first discovered by her husband, the turncock to the north  

division of St. Pancras parish, who, on returning home from his ordinary labours,  

found his wife lying on the floor with her head under the copper furnace. At a short  

distance from her he found a kitchen poker, which was considerably bent, and covered  

with blood and brains, that having been the instrument with which the wound on his  

wife had been inflicted. Her head was laid open from the right eye to the back of the  

skull, having been fractured in the most dreadful manner. Life still remaining, he went  

out to procure assistance, and met a man in the custody of James Ceel, from whom he  

learned they had taken him in a field near the spot belonging to Mr Thomas  

Greenwood, upon suspicion of having stolen a couple of bundles, which they found in  

his possession. Dobbins at once communicated the horrible scene that he had  

discovered in his own house, and it was concluded the prisoner was the murderer. In  

this persuasion they conveyed him before George Ivers, Esq. a magistrate for the  

county, residing in Kentish Town. 

Ceel stated, that as he was at work upon a new well in Millfield-lane, he saw  

the prisoner pass him with a bundle under his arm, with which he crossed the foot of  

Highgate-hill into Mr Greenwood's field. Suspecting, from the cautious mode of the  

prisoner's progress, that he had not obtained the property honestly, he followed him,  

and on overtaking him he found him examining the bundle, which apparently  

contained wearing apparel: he asked him how be had come by them? the prisoner said  

he had bought them of a gypsy for 9s. Not satisfied with this account he took him into  

custody, and was conducting him towards the road when Dobbins met them and  

informed him of the murder of his wife. Dobbins then examined the bundle, and  

perceived that it contained dothes which his wife had received to wash. 

From the circumstances, and the evidence before the coroner, no doubt  

remained of Sharpe being the murderer, and his guilt was fully proved on his trial,  

which came on at the Old Bailey the same month in which he committed the crime. 

The counsel for the prosecution having opened the case, James Dobbins, the  

supposed husband, was called as the first Witness, and stated, that he lived in a  

cottage in Millfield-lane, Kentish Town, and was in the employment of the  

Hampstead Water Company. The deceased lived with him, and had done so for  

twenty years. He was not married to her; she was a widow, and her name was  

Buchannon. On the day of the murder went home to dinner at twenty minutes after  

one; staid three quarters of an hour; left the deceased at home going to wash some  

linen; there was a passage leading from the front door, into which the door of the  

room in which he left his wife opened; worked with a man named Clarke, with whom  

he returned to the cottage about three o'clock; he went first to a barn, about fifteen  

yards from his door, to deposit some tools in it; Clarke said he was thirsty, and he  

went to the cottage to get some drink; he came back and gave an alarm, saying he  

found the door fast, and heard a groaning; witness, in a few minutes, went to the  

cottage, and found both doors open; in the room he saw the deceased lying on the  

floor near the copper; she was groaning; called for Clarke, who came to his assistance;  

lifted the deceased upon a chair, and found her head dreadfully cut; the bones of her  

skull were lying about; saw a poker bent and bloody standing by the copper; the  

deceased expired in a quarter of an hour. 

Wm. Clarke returned with Dobbins to the barn about three o'clock; went to the  

cottage for some water, found the door fast; called to Mrs Dobbins, but got no answer;  

thought he heard groans; alarmed Dobbins, who in about ten minutes went to the  

cottage; witness stopped in the barn, but by being called by Dobbins, went to him, and  

found what has already been described. 

Charles Bateman, a carpenter in Kentish Town, went by Dobbins' cottage  

about half past two on the afternoon of the 4th October; saw the prisoner standing at  

the gate; had no doubt of his person; saw him an hour after in custody. 

Wm. Taylor was at work at Mr Whitehead's, near Dobbins' cottage; went to  

Mrs Dobbins to borrow a barrow; saw the prisoner standing in the passage, within the  

door, eating a large piece of bread and butter; saw him the same afternoon, and had no  

doubt of his person. 

Thos. Camber was digging a foundation within two or three hundred yards of  

Dobbins' cottage; two men, named Ceel and Brimmer worked with him; about half  

past three o'clock he saw the prisoner come towards them from Milifield-lane; he had  

an arm full of clothes hanging loosely about him; when he saw witness he turned  

across the road, and went into a field; witness, Ceel, and Brimmer, followed him, and  

found him on one knee packing up the linen in a red handkerchief; Cell asked him  

where be got the linen? he said he bought it of a gypsy near Edgeware, and gave 9s.  

for it; Brimmer and Ceel then took him before the justice; witness went to see if he  

could find the owner of the linen; afterwards heard of the murder. 

James Ceel corroborated the testimony of the last witness, and further stated,  

that when he accused the prisoner of theft, he denied his guilt, but offered to give up  

the linen, and begged, for God's sake, that he would not take him to a justice, as he  

was the eldest of twelve children. The clothes found in his possession were afterwards  

given to the care of Birch, a constable. 

James Dobbins recognized some shirts found in the bundle as his property, and  

as having been in his cottage before the murder of the deceased. The poker produced  

was the same which he had seen under the copper; it was much bent, and stained with  

blood. 

The case for the prosecution was here closed. 

The prisoner being asked what he had got to say in his defence? said that he  

had bought the linen. 

The jury, without hesitation, pronounced a verdict of Guilty. 

The prisoner, on being asked what he had to say, why judgment of death  

should not be pronounced upon him? said he knew nothing of the murder. 

The Recorder then pronounced sentence of Death upon him in the usual  

manner, and ordered him to be executed on Monday morning next. 

The prisoner immediately cried out, "May the curse of God be upon you night  

and day, both in this world and the next." It is impossible to describe the shock which  

this horrid exclamation excited. 

The prisoner throughout the trial seemed perfectly at his ease. He was dressed  

in a gaol jacket, and his appearance was completely that of a character capable of  

committing the event imputed to him. He was of short statue, dark eyes, overhanging  

brow, and swarthy complexion, rather sharp featured, with two moles on his right  

cheek. He was a native of Layton, in Essex, where his father is a very respectable  

tinman. The unhappy parent did every thing in his power to reclaim his unfortunate  

son. The prisoner had been long known to the different police officers as a notorious  

character, and was before confined twelve months for a riot, in endeavouring to rescue  

some of his companions from the Hatton-garden officers. When his time had expired,  

and he had obtained his discharge, he observed to Barry Wheeler, the turnkey, that  

when he did anything again, he would do it capitally. 

Mr Ivers, the magistrate who committed Sharpe, accompanied by the Rev. E.  

Chaplin, a resident in Kentish Town, and one of the ministers of St. Martin's church,  

called frequently on the wretched man during his confinement. Mr Chaplin was  

present at his original examination, and both the gentlemen having treated him  

throughout with the greatest humanity, they seemed to have gained his confidence,  

and they were induced to hope that, after his conviction, he would atone as far as he  

was able, and make an ample confession of his crime. On their last visit before his  

trial, his countenance softened, he appeared to view them as friends, and in a low  

plaintive tone of voice, made his wants known to them-"he had no money, and could  

not get a drop of tea or beer." These wants were relieved, but no question was put to  

him as to his guilt or innocence; he was only exhorted to turn his thoughts seriously to  

religion, the true balm of all our woes, and to prepare himself for whatever might  

happen. "This he would do, he was well brought up, but he would confess nothing  

until after his trial." Notwithstanding the ferocious conduct of the criminal after  

sentence had been passed upon him, these gentlemen made a last effort on Saturday,  

and visited him in the condemned cell. They found him sitting upon his bed, with a  

bible and prayer-book laid by him, and smoking his pipe in apparent tranquillity. He  

recognized them on their entrance, and they conversed with him upwards of half an  

hour, during which time he seemed collected and composed, but nothing could induce  

him to admit that he was guilty. "He was innocent, both of the robbery and the  

murder, and he was determined to die with that assertion." In mild and persuasive  

language, the danger of final impenitence was pointed out to him in vain, and the  

gentlemen were obliged to leave him, hopeless, and with heavy hearts. 

He was executed the Monday morning following, and the public were led to  

imagine that his exit would be attended with some extraordinary circumstances; that  

he, who upon his conviction, seemed to leave his malediction upon mankind, would  

spurn the idea of feeling as one of the species even at the moment of his death, The  

general opinion was, we are happy to say, a mistaken one. He came forward subdued,  

and terrified, and died with the name of God in his mouth, and a repentant spirit It was  

but half an hour before he was conducted from his cell, that he shook off the awful  

apathy which marked his conduct during his trial. "I am a murderer," said be, "but  

there is a merciful God." When he was passing through the press-yard, he addressed  

the prisoners in a few words of admonition, apd while the officer was striking off his  

irons be prayed most fervently. At last he appeared upon the platform, to which he  

advanced with a hurried step, and a wildness in his countenance, very different from  

the spectacle it presented when his bloody work was described and detailed in all its  

monstrous particulars. He muttered a few words and died.

ELIZA FENNING  

A Cook, who was convicted of placing Arsenic in Dumplings, and executed,  

26th of June, 1815, after Solemn Protestations of Innocence

ELIZA FENNING was indicted at the Old Bailey for that she, on the 21st day  

of March, 1815, feloniously and unlawfully did administer to, and cause to be  

administered to, Orlibar Turner, Robert Gregson Turner and Charlotte Turner, his  

wife, certain deadly poison-to wit, arsenic-with intent to kill and murder the said  

persons. 

From the age of about fourteen Elizabeth Fenning had been out in servitude;  

and at twenty-two, in the latter end of January, 1815, was hired as cook into the  

family of Mr Orlibar Turner, at No. 68 Chancery Lane. About seven weeks from that  

time the circumstances unhappily arose which led to the unfortunate creature being  

charged with an attempt to murder Mr Turner's family. 

It was stated in evidence that Fenning cooked some yeast dumplings, which  

with beef-steak were served to Mrs Turner, her husband and his father, all of whom  

were afterwards seized with illness and excruciating pain. The prisoner herself, said  

Mrs Turner, was also taken ill. The prisoner had cooked the dumplings, and the  

allegation was that she had put arsenic in the dough with which she made them.  

Arsenic was kept in a drawer in two wrappers, with the words "Arsenic, deadly  

poison," written upon them. Any person might have access to the drawer. 

Margaret Turner said when she arrived at the house she found her husband,  

son and daughter extremely ill. The prisoner was also ill and vomiting. 

Q. Did you say anything to her while you were there that day respecting the  

dumplings?  

A. I exclaimed to her: "Oh, these devilish dumplings!" supposing they had  

done the mischief. She said: "Not the dumplings, but the milk, madam." I asked her:  

"What milk?" She said: "The halfpennyworth of milk that Sally fetched to make the  

sauce." 

Q. Did she say who had made the sauce?  

A. My daughter. I said: "That cannot be, it could not be the sauce." She said:  

Yes, Gadsden ate a very little bit of dumpling, not bigger than a nut, but licked up  

three parts of a boat of sauce with a bit of bread." Q. (To Mrs Turner, jun.): Was any  

sauce made with the milk that Sarah Peer fetched?  

A. It was. I mixed it, and left it for her to make. 

Robert Gregson Turner was here sworn.  

Q. Did you partake of the dumplings at dinner?  

A. Yes, I did.  

Q. Did you eat any of the sauce?  

A. Not any portion of that whatever.  

Q. Were you taken ill, sir?  

A. Soon after dinner I was, sir. I first felt an inclination to be sick: I then felt a  

strong heat across my chest. I was extremely sick.  

Q. Did it produce any swelling in you?  

A. I was exactly as my father and wife were, except stronger symptoms. I had  

eaten a dumpling and a half. I suffered more than any person.  

Q. Were your symptoms, and those of the others, such as could be produced  

by poison?  

A. I should presume so: all taken in the same way, and pretty near the same  

time. 

Mr John Marshall, sworn, said: "I am a surgeon. On the evening of Tuesday,  

the 21st of March, I was sent for to Mr Turner's family. I got there about a quarter  

before nine o'clock. All the afflictions of the family were produced by arsenic. I have  

no doubt of it, by the symptoms. The prisoner was also ill, by the same I have no  

doubt." 

Q. Did Mr Orlibar Turner show you a dish the next morning?  

A. He did. I examined it. I washed it with a tea-kettle of warm water. I first  

stirred it and let it subside. I decanted it off. I found half-a-teaspoonful of white  

powder. I washed it a second time. I found it to be decidedly arsenic.  

Q. Will arsenic, cut with a knife, produce the appearance of blackness upon  

the knife?  

A. I have no doubt of it.  

Q. Did you examine the remains of the yeast?  

A. Yes: there was not a grain of arsenic there; and I examined the flour-tub:  

there was no arsenic there. 

The prisoner said she was truly innocent of the whole charge, and the recorder,  

in addressing the jury, said: "Gentlemen, you have now heard the evidence given on  

this trial, and the case lies in a very narrow compass. There are but two questions for  

your consideration, and these are, whether poison was administered, in all, to four  

persons, and by what hand such poison was given. That these persons were poisoned  

appears certain from the evidence of Mrs Charlotte Turner, Orlibar Turner, Roger  

Gadsden, the apprentice, and Robert Turner; for each of these persons ate of the  

dumplings, and were all more or less affected-that is, they were every one poisoned.  

That the poison was in the dough of which these dumplings were composed has been  

fully proved, I think, by the testimony of the surgeon who examined the remains of  

the dough left in the dish in which the dumplings had been mixed and divided; and he  

deposes that the powder which had subsided at the bottom of the dish was arsenic.  

That the arsenic was not in the flour I think appears plain, from the circumstance that  

the crust of a pie had been made that very morning with some of the same flour of  

which the dumplings were made and the persons who dined off the pie felt no  

inconvenience whatever; that it was not in the yeast nor in the milk has been also  

proved; neither could it be in the sauce, for two of the persons who were ill never  

touched a particle of the sauce, and yet were violently affected with retching and  

sickness. From all these circumstances it must follow that the poisonous ingredient  

was in the dough alone; for, besides that the persons who partook of the dumplings at  

dinner were all more or less affected by what they had eaten, it was observed by one  

of the witnesses that the dough retained the same shape it had when first put into the  

dish to rise, and that it appeared dark, and was heavy, and in fact never did rise. The  

other question for your consideration is, by what hand the poison was administered;  

and although we have nothing before us but circumstantial evidence, yet it often  

happens that circumstances are more conclusive than the most positive testimony. The  

prisoner, when taxed with poisoning the dumplings, threw the blame first on the milk,  

next on the yeast, and then on the sauce; but it has been proved, most satisfactorily,  

that none of these contained it, and that it was in the dumplings alone, which no  

person but the prisoner had made. Gentlemen, if poison had been given even to a dog,  

one would suppose that common humanity would have prompted us to assist it in its  

agonies: here is the case of a master and a mistress being both poisoned, and no  

assistance was offered. Gentlemen, I have now stated all the facts as they have arisen,  

and I leave the case in your hands, being fully persuaded that, whatever your verdict  

may be, you will conscientiously discharge your duty both to your God and to your  

country." 

After the charge, the jury in a few minutes brought in a verdict of guilty, and  

the recorder passed sentence of death upon the prisoner. The miserable girl was  

carried from the bar convulsed with agony, and uttering frightful screams.  

On the 26th of June (says The Annual Register), the day appointed for the  

execution of Elizabeth Fenning, William Oldfield and Abraham Adams, the public  

curiosity was strongly excited, perhaps to a greater degree than on any similar event  

since the memorable execution of Haggerty, Holloway, etc. In the case of Fenning  

many had taken up an opinion that her guilt was not clearly established, for she had  

uniformly protested her innocence. The last interview between her and her parents  

took place about half-past one o'clock on Tuesday. To them, and to the last moment,  

she persisted in her innocence. About eight o'clock the sheriffs proceeded from justice  

Hall along the subterraneous passage to the press-yard. 

Fenning was dressed in white, with laced boots, and a cap. Oldfield went up to  

her in the press-yard and enjoined her to prayer, and assured her that they should all  

be happy. 

The sheriffs preceded the cavalcade to the steps of the scaffold, to which the  

unfortunate girl was first introduced. Just as the door was opened the Reverend Mr  

Cotton stopped her for a moment, to ask her if, in her last moments, she had anything  

to communicate. She paused a moment, and said: "Before the just and Almighty God,  

and by the faith of the Holy Sacrament I have taken, I am innocent of the offence with  

which I am charged." This she spoke with much firmness of emphasis, and followed it  

by saying what all around her understood to be: "My innocence will be manifested in  

the course of the day." The last part of this sentence was spoken, however, so  

inaudibly that it was not rightly understood, and the Reverend Mr Cotton, being  

anxious to hear it again, put a question to get from her positive words: to which she  

answered: "I hope God will forgive me, and make manifest the transaction in the  

course of the day." She then mounted the platform with the same uniform firmness  

she had maintained throughout. A handkerchief was tied over her face, and she prayed  

fervently, but, to the last moment, declared her innocence. Oldfield came up next,  

with a firm step, and addressed a few words in prayer to the unhappy girl. About half- 

past eight o'clock the fatal signal was given. One movement only was perceptible in  

Fenning. After hanging the usual hour, the bodies were cut down, and given over to  

their friends for interment. The following paragraph relative to Elizabeth Fenning  

appeared in an evening paper:- 

"We should deem ourselves wanting in justice, and a due respect for  

government, if we did not state that, in consequence of the many applications from the  

friends of this unhappy young woman who this day suffered the sentence of the law, a  

meeting took place yesterday at Lord Sidmouth's office (his lordship is out of town),  

at which the Lord Chancellor, the recorder, and Mr Beckett were present. A full and  

minute investigation of the case, we understand, took place, and of all that had been  

urged in her favour by private individuals; but the result was a decided conviction that  

nothing had occurred which could justify an interruption of the due course of justice.  

So anxious was the Lord Chancellor in particular to satisfy his own mind, and put a  

stop to all doubts on the part of the people at large, that another meeting was held by  

the same parties last night, when they came to the same determination, and in  

consequence the unfortunate culprit suffered the penalty of the law." 

Her funeral took place on the 31st. It began to move from the house of her  

father, in Eagle Street, Red Lion Square, about half-past three o'clock; preceded by  

about a dozen peace officers, and these were followed by nearly thirty more; next  

came the undertaker, immediately followed by the body of the deceased, The pall was  

supported by six young females, attired in white; then followed eight persons, male  

and female, as chief mourners, led by the parents. These were succeeded by several  

hundreds of persons, two and two, and the whole was closed by a posse of peace  

officers. Many thousands accompanied the procession, and the windows, and even the  

tops of the houses, as it passed were thronged with spectators. The whole proceeded  

in a regular manner until it reached the burying-ground of St George the Martyr. The  

number of persons assembled in and about the churchyard was estimated at ten  

thousand.

THOMAS BROCK, JOHN PELHAM, and MICHAEL  

POWER  

Convicted of Coining, 25th of September, 1816

IN the year 1816, when Sir Matthew Wood was lord mayor of London, several  

conspiracies of a most diabolical nature were detected, and some of the conspirators  

punished. The conduct of the chief magistrate was such as to do honour not only to his  

understanding and ability, but to his disinterestedness and humanity. 

The legislature, with the intention of stimulating the exertions of police  

officers, and inducing others to give information, had awarded certain rewards to the  

parties who should contribute to the conviction of offenders against the laws. The  

object was laudable, but it was capable of great perversion, and was liable to many  

objections; it gave the prosecutor an interest in the conviction of the accused, and on  

that account tended to impress the public with the belief that the condemnation, and  

not the acquittal of the prisoner, was the object of our criminal laws. It was too true  

that 'blood money', as this species of remuneration was emphatically denominated, did  

contribute in reality to the evil we allude to. But had not a development of  

unparalleled villainy put scepticism to flight, we could not have brought ourselves to  

believe that those who were paid to detect crime should be found the most active in  

seducing innocence and youth to its commission. Yet it is an indubitable fact that, for  

ten years preceding 1816, victims were brought up, session after session, to be  

convicted of crimes to which they were seduced by the very men who gave evidence  

against them, that they might revel on the 'blood money', or make use of it to provide  

other victims for the law. 

The discovery of this diabolical system took place in the course of the trial of  

three men named Quin, Riorton, and Connolly; it appears that these unfortunate  

beings were detected in fabricating base shillings and bank tokens, and being brought  

to trial, they were convicted. During the examination of the witnesses for the  

prosecution, however, whose names appear at the head of this article, some  

circumstances came out, which induced a suspicion in the mind of the Lord Mayor  

that the prosecutors were in some way mixed up with the guilt of the prisoners. An  

investigation in consequence took place; but the convicts, on being confronted with  

their accusers, refused to say anything against them, saying that they were 'under an  

oath'. They were Irishmen and Catholics, and the rigid observance which they pay to  

an oath is well known; but a priest having at length persuaded them that they were not  

bound by such an oath administered unlawfully, they disclosed the whole particulars  

of the plot, and their accusers were in consequence secured. 

The three new prisoners were then indicted for participation in the crime of  

their dupes, which amounted to high treason; and at the session held on the 25th of  

September 1816, were brought to trial at the Old Bailey. 

A man named Barry then swore that Pelham had applied to him to get some  

men to make bad shillings, which Power, it was said, could colour. Barry said they  

must go to the market for them, which was in Cheapside, at the corner of King Street,  

where poor Irishmen were waiting for employment. Some days after, he went with  

Brock and Power to the market, when Quin and Riorton were engaged by them. Being  

told they could not be employed unless they would be sworn to secrecy, they took an  

oath on a piece of paper. A room was hired and tools procured by the prisoners, and  

the poor Irishmen were set to work to cut brass into the form of shillings, &c. under  

the superintendence of Power. Connolly was sent for to assist. He said to Barry, in  

Irish, 'We are doing a job that will hang us all', to which the latter replied that if he  

thought so he would not work another day at it. The Irishmen were then employed in  

colouring the metal, and everything being in readiness, notice was given, the officers  

entered, and the Irishmen were seized, tried, and found guilty. 

Pelham's landlady proved that the scissors used by the Irish men in cutting  

through brass had been procured by her at Pelham's request. Another woman also  

swore that the hammer and files taken in the coining room had been sold by her to  

Brock and Pelham. 

Brock, in his defence, declared his innocence. Power denied either going to the  

market or the room; and Pelham said the Barrys were noted perjurers, and the women  

were false witnesses. 

The jury, without hesitation, however, brought in a verdict of Guilty, and the  

prisoners were transported. 

The three Irishmen were then pardoned; and the Lord Mayor having interested  

himself in their behalf, a subscription was opened, and they were enabled to return to  

their own country and there to purchase small farms.

CASHMAN, HOOPER, GAMBLE, GUNNELL,  

CARPENTER, HUNT, AND WATSON  

The Spafields rioters, 1817

IN consequence of an advertisement which was placarded throughout the  

metropolis, stating that a meeting of manufacturers, artisans, etc., would be convened  

in these fields, to take into consideration the propriety of petitioning the prince regent  

upon the present distressed state of the country, an immense concourse of people was  

on Friday assembled. The meeting was advertised to be held at 12 o'clock, for 1; but  

long previous to that hour crowds were seen to flock from all parts to attend it. 

At about half-past twelve, a hackney coach, containing four persons, was seen  

to drive into the fields, pelted with dirt and mud by the mob. Upon its arrival in the  

midst of the crowd, Mr Parkes addressed them from the window, and requested them  

to be tranquil. He then mounted upon the roof, and harangued the surrounding  

multitude till about 1 o'clock, when Mr Henry Hunt made his appearance, and  

commenced his harangue from one of the windows of the front room, and after  

declaiming in his usual manner about the corruption of the government and the  

distresses of the country, concluded by moving his resolutions; one of which was, that  

the assembly should meet again on the Monday fortnight following, in order to hear  

the prince regent's answer to the petition. 

Hand-bills were afterwards diligently distributed, and a large concourse of  

people accordingly took place on the 2nd December, and is supposed to have  

consisted of at least 10,000 persons. 

The Merlin's Cave (the public-house from which the meeting was formerly  

addressed) was surrounded by 12 o'clock with a great assemblage, that crowned the  

height before the door, and various detached parties spread over the fields, ready to  

fall into the general current directed to the quarter where Mr Hunt was expected to  

make his appearance. As a prelude to the scene that followed, a coal waggon, filled  

with persons of mean appearance, was stationed, shortly after 12 o'clock, at that part  

of the Spafields next the House of Correction. The waggon had two tri-coloured flags  

borne by its company: on one was inscribed, in large letters, the following  

inflammatory sentences: 

'The brave Soldiers are our Brothers, treat them kindly.' 

On the other were these words: 

'Nature Feeds the Hungry,  

'Truth Protects the Oppressed,  

'Justice Punishes Crimes.' 

About one o'clock the body of the persons in front of Merlin's Cave, had  

increased to at least twenty thousand; and about that time, Mr Hunt, the grand mover,  

made his appearance, seated in his gig drawn in tandem by a grey horse and a bay  

leader. He was alone, muffled in a coachman's box coat, and a pair of pistols were  

stuck in holsters within the gig. His reception, of course, was tumultuous. A servant  

walked by his leader, and the gig moved slowly through the people to the door of the  

Merlin's Cave public-house, where a person said to be Dyall, and others, who  

promoted the meeting, waited his coming. Mr W. Clark, the chairman of the last  

meeting, was immediately called to the same office on this occasion, and exhorted the  

meeting to commit no riots, as spies and informers were among them. 

Mr Hunt then came forward amid the most tumultuous applause, and  

addressing the crowd by the usual title of 'Friends and fellow-countrymen,' exhorted  

them in the usual joke to keep silence, by holding their tongues, and not by calling out  

silence. He then harangued them as before for a considerable time, and in the course  

of his speech read his correspondence with lord Sidmouth, on the subject of the late  

petition. The meeting as usual was not guilty of any unlawful proceedings, but  

became an opportunity to the thieves, the ruffians, and the deluded, to take advantage  

of. Those actually engaged in the excesses, about 200 in number, separated from it  

about or a little before the arrival of the orator, and proceeded in a tumultuous manner  

through the streets of the metropolis. 

On reaching Skinner-street, one of the body advancing before the rest entered  

the shop of Mr Beckwith, the gun-smith, calling out 'Arms, arms!' A gentleman who  

happened to be in the shop, named Platt, affably attempting to remonstrate, said, 'My  

friend, you are mistaken; this is not the place for arms.' The ruffian instantly drew  

forth a pistol, and lodged the contents of it in the hip or groin of Mr Platt, but the  

wound was happily not mortal. The shop-door was instantly closed upon the assassin,  

whom Mr Beckwith's shopman with great spirit seized, and hurried into the back  

shop, where he was given in charge to a constable, who negligently permitted the  

prisoner to go upstairs. The latter instantly sprung to the window, threw up the sash,  

waved his handkerchief, and addressing the mob, assured them that they had nothing  

to fear, as there were but few persons in the house, and he might easily be rescued.  

Hereupon the mob attacked the house, and, besides committing various ravages,  

carried off the prisoner. On their departure they also plundered the shop of a quantity  

of guns, pistols, &c. Fortunately a number of fire-arms were deposited out of sight,  

which they did not find. These afterwards were safely lodged in Newgate. The  

ruffians, thus armed, pursued their course into the city, with the view, it was  

apprehended, of attacking the Bank. As they proceeded along Cheapside, they loaded  

and discharged their pieces, and displayed various menacing gestures, as if to  

intimidate the spectators. Having arrived at the Royal Exchange, they entered that  

building in marching order. Here they were met by the lord mayor, alderman sir  

James Shaw, and a strong party of the police. As soon as the greatest part of the  

rioters had passed through the north side, directions were given to close all the gates  

leading out of the Exchange, by which means three men with arms, having on them  

the name of Beckwith, were taken into custody. Sir James Shaw seized the man, with  

the colours, and one of the guns. 

The remainder of the insurgents became exceedingly furious on learning the  

capture of their comrades and their banners; and not being able to force the Exchange- 

gates, they raised each other upon their shoulders, and fired over the top of the gates  

at the lord mayor and his party, whilst others fired under the gates. A fresh force,  

however, arriving to his lordship's aid, the ruffians departed, taking the direction of  

the Minories, where they entered the shops of Mr Brander and Mr Ray, gunsmiths.  

From the former they took a quantity of arms, and from the latter they seized not only  

guns and pistols, but we understand also plate to a considerable amount. They also  

took from the premises of Mr Ray two small brass field-pieces on wheels, one of  

which was afterwards seized and lodged in the Mansion-house. They entirely  

destroyed all the windows and window-frames in the house of both these tradesmen.  

Happily the plunderers did not look into a storehouse belonging to Mr Brander, which  

contained at least 3,000 stand of arms. A party of horse was afterwards stationed in  

the Minories to protect the arms and valuable shops in that quarter. Many of the gun- 

makers in the eastern part of the town sent their arms to the Tower for protection,  

where, it is said, they were refused admission. All the prisons in and round the  

metropolis were put into a state of defence, and had some of the military stationed  

within for protection. 

The city had been well provided with soldiers, both horse and foot, previous to  

the meeting; the horse paraded all parts of the metropolis during the evening and the  

night, to preserve order. 

The Bank and East India House were provided with sufficient force to repel  

any attack, and the City Militia kept watch in the Royal Exchange. The inns of court  

had their gates closed, and the shops in almost all the principal streets of the city were  

shut. 

In consequence of the recommendation of the lord mayor, the respectable  

inhabitants of the several wards pressed forward to be sworn in as special constables;  

and in Candlewick Ward alone more than one half of the householders were enrolled  

in less than an hour. It is supposed that several thousands were upon the whole sworn  

in, and among others, the members of Lloyd's and the Stock Exchange. 

Two of the ruffians who were seized, were taken up to the committee-room at  

Lloyd's; the first was a shoe-maker, named Hooper, and the second, a sailor, named  

Cashman. They were both taken with arms in their possession; one of them had his  

pistol loaded. The sailor said, on being questioned by the city marshal, that he had but  

one life to lose, and he did not care; he had no work, could get none, and could not  

starve. Being asked where his parish was, he said he was born at sea, and had no  

parish. Hooper would not answer any question put to him; he would only say his  

name was John Hooper. 

Another portion of the mob from Spafields, after indulging themselves for an  

hour or two, proceeded by the way of St. Giles's, and down Catherine-street, into the  

Strand, making pretty free wherever it suited their purpose. Holywell-street, St.  

Clement's, seemed particularly to invite them. Their chief object of attack there, about  

seven o'clock, was the Dog tavern. They broke almost all the front windows, and  

carried off the whole of the exposed larder. Next they assailed the premises of an  

elderly man, a Mr Gilbert, who sells a variety of clothing articles. From his shop, after  

smashing a few panes, they took different articles of wearing apparrel. Thence, in the  

same narrow street, they proceeded to a piece broker's, of the Israelitish name of Levi,  

where they helped themselves to whatever his second-hand assortment afforded them  

of great coats and under-coats, waistcoats, and other convenient articles of dress.  

There were strong symptoms of the disposition of the misled mob about Lambeth and  

the adjacent roads at four o'clock; but these manifestations of a spirit of rioting were  

happily checked by the march of a body of the military over Westminster Bridge into  

St. George's Fields, which consisted of a detachment of foot guards and of dragoons,  

followed up by more foot guards and artillery men, all with bayonets fixed and swords  

drawn. The effect of this was to cause the would-be depredators to skulk into lanes  

and corners, and mutter the discontent which they were afraid openly to avow. 

These disgraceful scenes being happily ended, the next subject of importance  

was to bring the rioters to justice, and a great degree of anxiety was manifested on  

Tuesday morning, at the Mansion-house, in expectation that a public examination  

would take place upon the cases of Hooper, Cashman, and Carter, who were seized on  

Monday, at the Royal Exchange. It appeared that one was a shoemaker, and the other  

two sailors. Hooper, who was the person seized with the colours in his hand, was the  

treasurer of the Spafields meeting. 

The lord mayor being of opinion that some clue might be discovered into the  

whole system, determined on a private examination as the most likely means to  

accomplish such an object. The prisoners were accordingly removed from the justice- 

room into another apartment; but nothing of importance transpired. They all  

acknowledged that they were concerned in the disturbance, and bore arms, which  

were given to them by persons of whom they knew nothing; but denied that they had  

any intention of doing mischief. 

Richard Gambell, who is about seventeen years of age, was brought up by  

Goff, the officer, who said that he had stopped him in Queen-street, in the Borough,  

about two o'clock on Monday last, with a gun in his hand, his face being then  

blackened over, as the officer supposed for the purpose of disguise. The name of  

Beckwith appeared on the gun, and the prisoner was walking in the direction from  

Blackfriars. 

Thursday, the lord mayor entered into a private examination of the case of  

Hooper, charged with being connected with the Watsons, and being present at the  

time Mr Platt was shot. At about a quarter after three his lordship proceeded to the  

public examination of Cashman. 

Fogg, the marshalman, said, that he saw the prisoner with a fowling-piece in  

his hand, at the very moment sir James Shaw secured the man who held the flag. The  

witness struck the prisoner on the arm, and the fowling-piece fell to the ground: there  

was no bayonet on the gun, and the distance between him who held it and the person  

who was waving the colours was about thirty feet. The scene of this action was the  

Royal Exchange. 

Cashman, who said he was anxious to speak in justification of himself,  

declared that the gun had been given to him at the corner of St. Paul's, while he was  

talking to the street-sweeper. There were, he said, two other men present and a  

woman, all of whom saw the transaction. The person who put the arms into his  

possession was not known to him, and be should find it difficult to recognize him  

amongst the great variety of persons who were furnished with weapons of the same  

description. 

Cashman, in further explanation, said he was not in Spafields, or in any other  

fields, on the day of the disturbance; and denied that he knew the direction in which  

Skinner street was. In answer to a question from the lord mayor, be said he had not  

worn a cockade in his hat on Monday. 

He admitted that he joined the mob, but not until they had passed the end of  

St. Paul's Church-yard; and declared that his conduct while he was in the crowd was  

inoffensive in every respect. The cause, he said, of his being in the streets on Monday  

was humanity, which compelled him to be the bearer of a letter from a messmate in  

the hospital to admiral Martin; at whose house, in the Admiralty, he had called, from  

which he was directed to the admiral's office, Somerset-house. He said he delivered  

the letter to a gentleman who wore spectacles, but could not tell at what hour he had  

done so. Cartwright, the marshalman, said, that Cashman told him as his reason for  

going out that day, that he had applied both to the lord mayor and the admiralty for  

relief in vain, and was determined to kill or be killed. Remanded. 

Carter was next put to the bar, also charged with being one of the rioters. The  

witnesses were not present against him, owing to the late hour of the day; but the lord  

mayor said, that the prisoner confessed to him, in his private examination, that he had  

taken a spell at holding the colours, and had them taken from him because he held  

them too clumsily, and could not furl them. He also owned that he had been at the  

Spafields meeting. 

Several witnesses appeared on behalf of the prisoner, to give him a good  

character, but he was remanded for further examination. 

The lord mayor then adjourned to his private room, for the purpose of  

examining Preston. 

Preston advanced with great boldness and intrepidity, and seemed in much  

better health than when at Spafields. 

The lord mayor reminded the prisoner, that it was in evidence against him, that  

he not only was in the Minories with the mob, but the waggon at Spafields along with  

its acknowledged leaders. 

Mr Bradford, who saw him there, deposed to this fact. Preston did not dispute  

or deny this evidence. He was secretary to the committee that managed the business of  

the Spafields meeting. If his conduct while acting in that capacity was a crime, it was  

a crime which he would be proud to commit again. He acknowledged he was in the  

waggon from which the pretended conspirators descended; but he was there exerting  

his influence to prevent riot, and giving his advice to behave orderly and peaceably.  

This was likewise the wish and the endeavour of that great and good man, that  

patriotic and worthy character Mr Hunt who, he was sure, had no knowledge of what  

was going forward in the city at the time be was addressing his countrymen in  

Spafields. That great man was exerting all his endeavours to restore the rights and to  

reduce the distresses of his country-to reform public abuses, and to weaken the  

influence of those who destroyed the constitution of their country, and degraded the  

royal dignity. 

The lord mayor remanded the prisoner till Saturday, telling him that in the  

mean time be might prepare for his defence, or call his friends or advisers to his  

assistance. 

The pistols found upon Hooper were produced; and William Mills, shopman  

to Mr Parker, Holborn, stated, that he sold them on Saturday week, to a person who  

said his name was Watson. 

Hooper said Watson gave the pistols to him on the Sunday previous to the  

meeting. He judged they were loaded, but did not try, and never fired them. 

William Mills said, that the person who bought the pistols returned in an hour  

and a half and purchased another brace. The witness identified the pistol found upon  

Watson senior as one of them; and that found in Mr Beckwith's shop, and with which  

Mr Platt was wounded, as the other. He traced the notes given in payment for them  

with the name of Watson on them, which the witness had himself written. 

Hooper said he received the pistols at No. 9 Graystock place, from young  

Watson: Preston was present at the time. The prisoner here gave an inconsistent  

account of the manner in which he became possessed of the pistols. He denied that  

Watson said a word to him about them, or offered them to him, but mentioned that he  

understood he was to take the pistols into his possession. 

William Gunnell and Thomas Tyrell, two draymen, were then called, and put  

to the bar. 

Mr Griffin of Skinner-street said that the first man that broke the windows of  

Mr Beckwith's shop was certainly a drayman: but I fear it is not possible for me to  

recollect either of the parties now at the bar. 

[Here the lord mayor ordered the prisoners each to put on his hat, when the  

last witness continued]-The man who broke the windows had, I think, smaller  

features than the prisoners; but the shortest prisoner of the two (Gunnell) I certainly  

saw in Skinner-street. 

John Wilson-I am a private in the first regiment of life guards, and was in the  

Minories on the day of the riots, where I saw a man very active in the mob. I cannot  

say he was a drayman, but he wielded a weapon like an axe very dexterously, and  

made a cut at my arm. 

The lord mayor-The shorter man (Gunnell) I saw myself, but who can speak  

to Tyrell? 

Brand, the marshalman-The prisoner, my lord, was pointed out to me as one  

of the rioters, and when I went to take him into custody, he said he knew he was  

wanted. 

Mr Hirnish-I was passing Skinner-street the day of the riots, and saw the mob  

turning towards the house of Mr Beckwith; they had a flag flying, and I saw a  

drayman advance to the shop, and with the butt-end of a musket break in the  

windows. The piece with which he did it was very large and heavy. 

E. Hone, the foreman to Mr Beckwith, confirmed the testimony of the last  

gentleman, as to the outrage upon the shop being first committed by a drayman. 

The lord mayor-Can you, Tyrell, bring evidence as to where you were on the  

day of the riots? 

Prisoner-I can, my lord, I was in Spaflelds on that day for about half an hour,  

and then went to a public-house. I afterwards went to another public-house where I  

remained until four o'clock. A person named Gossett was with me. 

The lord mayor-Then let the individual you mention be brought forward on  

Thursday. The case against you is slight, and I shall not detain you longer than I can  

help. 

Tyrell was discharged the following Thursday. 

The lord mayor-The fullest consideration up to the present time has been  

given to the different cases, and the best opinion taken which could be obtained. The  

result of these are, that the prisoners could all be indicted for the felony in breaking  

the house of Mr Beckwith, and plundering it of arms, etc. The city solicitor does not  

wish to decide too rapidly, and though all may be committed for the offence stated,  

there are of course shades of distinction in the guilt of the parties. 

On Monday, the 20th of January, Mr Justice Park, and Mr Justice Burrough,  

accompanied by the lord mayor and the common serjeant, took their seats on the  

bench, when John Hooper, Richard Gamble, John Cashman, William Gunnell, and  

John Carpenter, were put to the bar to be arraigned before a London jury. They  

severally pleaded Not Guilty to the indictment, which imputed to them capital felony,  

in stealing, on the 2nd of December, in the parish of St. Sepulchre, two blunderbusses,  

ten pair of pistols, a great number of muskets, and twenty steel shot charges, worth  

about 250L., the property of Andrew Beckwith, in his dwelling-house. The indictment  

went on to state, that at the time of the said robbery, Charles Griffin, John Roberts,  

and Henry Beckwith, being then and there in the said dwelling-house, were put in  

great fear and bodily danger. Mr Bolland proceeded to call witnesses, but as the  

substance of their evidence has already been given in the general history of these riots  

and in the examinations at the Mansion-house, we deem it unnecessary to occupy the  

time of our readers by the detail of questions and answers, which would only swell the  

size of the volume, without giving any additional information. 

Mr Justice Park said, that there had been no attempt, on the part of the  

prosecution, to establish high treason, and therefore if the indictment was sufficient to  

support the offence charged in it, it was enough; all that the jury had to decide was,  

whether the prisoners had committed the felony imputed to them or not; if they should  

be afterwards tried for high treason, it would then be the business of the judges who  

tried them to determine whether it were high treason or not. 

The learned judge then called on Cashman to state what he had to say in his  

defence, to which he replied, that he had been on the morning of the riot to see a sick  

man in the London hospital, and then went to Rosemary-lane to get his breakfast. He  

afterwards went with a letter to admiral Martin's house at the admiralty, and delivered  

it to a gentleman, who looked at it; as he was returning home, he saw a mob near St.  

Paul's; the people were running along, but he did not join in any of the excesses which  

they committed. 

John Hooper said, that after having been in custody three weeks, there was no  

material evidence against him, and that the lord mayor then admitted him to bail. To- 

day however, most frightful, terrible evidence had been brought against him, which he  

was wholly unprepared to meet. He had a tri-coloured cockade, but his motive was to  

take the colours from young Watson. He never entered Mr Beckwith's shop; his object  

in going into the city was to beg the lord mayor to keep the people quiet, as he was  

afraid of their proceedings. He could have had respectable witnesses, but the time was  

so short, probably they were not present. 

Richard Gamble being called on for his defence, said, that on the 2nd of  

December he went to look for work, and saw a great many people in Holborn. They  

told him they were going to Spafields, and he accompanied them, thinking something  

good was to be proposed for mechanics; but he could not get near enough to hear  

what was said. When he came down to Mr Beckwith's shop, it was broken open, and  

the mob were very riotous; he picked up a gun in Skinner-street, and three men  

exclaimed, D--n his eyes, shoot him! he then went to Union-street, in the Borough,  

where he arrived about half past one-a friend had seen him pick up the gun. He then  

called some persons to his character. 

William Gunnell said, he did not break Mr Beckwith's windows, nor was he in  

the shop. 

John Carpenter stated, that on the day in question he was out of employment,  

and went to the London-docks to look for work, but could not get any. He then went  

to Spital-fields to see a cousin, when he heard there was a riot at the Mansion-house; a  

man put a pistol and some powder and shot into his hand, but he said he had no use  

for it. He and Gunnell then called some witnesses to their characters, and Mr Justice  

Park then proceeded to sum up the evidence. He informed the jury, that the five  

prisoners at the bar stood indicted for feloniously stealing, at the parish of St.  

Sepulchre, in this city, a vast quantity of arms in the dwelling-house of William  

Andrew Beckwith, several persons being then in the dwelling-house, and put in fear.  

It was not necessary to prove that all the bodies and persons of the prisoners had been  

in Mr Beckwith's house; if any of them were without aiding, abetting, and  

comporting, they were equally guilty with those within. At the conclusion of his  

address, the jury desired leave to withdraw; they remained in their retirement from  

half past four o'clock till a quarter past six, and then pronounced the following  

verdict: 

John Cashman, guilty-John Hooper, Richard Gamble, William Gunnell, and  

John Carpenter, not guilty. 

The Recorder was then alone on the bench, and seemed by his manner to  

express surprise at the acquittal of the four last: and thinking he had not heard the  

foreman distinctly, said Hooper not guilty! 

He then added, Let the four last be detained to be tried for the misdemeanour;  

and, we believe, Let another London jury be summoned for to-morrow at ten o'clock. 

Cashman was executed on the 12th of March, and to make the example the  

more striking, it was determined that his punishment should take place where his  

crime had been committed. At a quarter before five in the morning the platform was  

drawn from the session's house-yard to Skinner-street, and placed in front of Mr  

Beckwith's house. At six, one of the gentlemen who sat up with Cashman quitted his  

cell. The wretched man, during the early part of the night, indulged himself in  

observations on the injustice of his sentence, and the hardship with which he had been  

treated by government, as well as on his adventures; but towards morning he became  

more composed, having had about two hours sleep. Clean linen being brought him, he  

changed his shirt and drawers, put on a sailor's blue jacket, and white trousers, and  

tied a black silk handkerchief round his neck; he then expressed his readiness to die,  

and as the door of his cell opened to admit the sheriffs, stepped forward with alacrity,  

and said, "Am I to go now?" 

About ten minutes before eight, he took his seat in the cart between the  

executioner and his assistant; his firmness was unabated, and not a muscle of his face  

betrayed any internal fear. 

As the sheriffs came forward, the mob expressed the strongest feelings of  

indignation; groans and hisses burst from every quarter, and attempts were made to  

rush forward. The officers, however, stood firm to their posts, and being supported by  

the wooden rails, succeeded in preventing mischief. This conduct was frequently  

repeated before the cart reached its destination, Cashman joining with the multitude,  

and saying, "Hurrah, my boys, I'll die like a man!" On his quitting the cart, and  

ascending the scaffold, the groans were redoubled, and the criminal seemed fully to  

enter into the spirit of the spectators-he joined in their cries with a horrible shout, and  

repeated his observations on the hardship of his case. His face was at first towards  

Holborn, but he afterwards turned round to greet the multitude on every side of him,  

crying, "Hurra, my hearties in the cause-success-cheer up." 

When the executioner advanced to put the rope round his neck, the tumult  

increased to an alarming degree, and exclamations of disgust burst forth with greater  

violence than before. On the night-cap being put over his face, he said, "For God's  

sake let me see till the last-I want no cap;" in this wish he was indulged, by the cap  

being withdrawn, when he immediately turned towards Mr Beckwith's house, and said  

"I'll be with you there" as if to signify that he would haunt the house after his death;  

and then, addressing the crowd again, he said, "I am the last of seven of us that fought  

for our king and country; I could not get my own, and that has brought me here." 

The executioner having quitted the platform to perform his office underneath  

it, the miserable man addressed that part of the crowd nearest to him, exclaiming,  

"Now you give me three cheers when I trip hurra, you --!" and then calling to the  

executioner, he cried "Come, Jack, let go the jib-boom." The remaining short period  

of his existence he employed in a similar manner, and was in the act of cheering when  

the board fell from under his feet-the cap was then drawn over his face, and he died  

with a very slight struggle. A dead silence instantly prevailed; but, after the lapse of a  

few minutes, expressions of indignation were again heard against every person who  

had taken any part in the awful scene. Cries of "murder!, murder!" "shame!, shame!"  

were heard from innumerable mouths; "Where are the conspirators? Why not hang  

them?" That part of the crowd most distant from the platform, soon began to retire,  

but many thousands remained until the body was cut down. At nine o'clock, a black  

deal shell was brought, and the body was placed in it by the executioner, under  

direction of the sheriffs; on seeing which, the populace made an attempt to get  

underneath the barriers, but were successfully resisted. 

Cashman, from his own account, was born at sea, and lived for some time in  

America. His mother resides near Cork, in Ireland, and he said he had two brothers  

living, in the king's service, but where they were just previous to his death he did not  

know. On the morning before his execution he was visited by his aunt and cousin, and  

took an affectionate leave of them. After his conviction be was repeatedly visited by  

Watson and Preston, who, it is said, told him be would be set at liberty, through them,  

before long. He said that he had often seen the former previous to the meeting in  

Spaflelds and his name was on a list found upon Watson when be was apprehended. 

Officers were instantly dispatched in search of the younger Watson in every  

direction, and the lord mayor hourly received communications respecting him. 

At one time, when the lord mayor was in the justice-room, he received positive  

information that young Watson was seen on his way from London-bridge towards St.  

Thomas's hospital. His lordship lost no time in taking the proper steps to have the  

person so described overtaken and secured, which was effected, but it was not the  

desired party. Information of a still stronger nature was given to his lordship of a  

young man, whose person, dress, &c. corresponded in every way with those of young  

Watson, being in a house in the vicinity of the King's Bench. Leadbetter and another  

were dispatched to the place, and secured the person in his bed about two o'clock in  

the morning. In the possession of the young man there was found a number of papers,  

from which it appeared, that he was formerly a medical person, and had been in the  

army. Upon a strict examination, however, of his person and features, nearly as be  

resembled in every particular save one, it was evident that young Watson bad still  

continued to elude s vigilance perhaps unequalled. A young man was detained at  

Cambridge for three days, because he had the misfortune to be like young Watson! 

When his lordship's anxiety for the apprehension of Watson was known,  

innumerable letters poured in from all parts of the country; and, after the business of  

the justice-room, he was frequently occupied till nearly one o'clock in the morning  

with examining their contents; some were descriptive of individuals who were  

supposed to be the offender, and others purported to come from himself. A great  

many, however, bearing the face of forgeries, were not thought worthy of notice. 

After his escape from the house of Mr Beckwith, where he had shot Mr Platt,  

it is believed he returned hastily to his lodgings, and possessed himself of some papers  

and trifling articles, and then went to a public-house in the neighbourhood of Fetter- 

lane, where he fell in with his father, and, with him and another person, left London,  

on their way to Northampton. At Highgate, however, they were intercepted by the  

horse patrole, who took them for highwaymen, and a desperate scuffle ensued, which  

ended in the capture of the elder Watson, and the dispersion of the others. Young  

Watson had the good fortune to get safe to London, and notwithstanding the large  

reward offered for his apprehension, received protection from several families. The  

circumstance of his effectual concealment is the more remarkable, from his hiding- 

place being known to above eighty individuals, many of whom were in indigent  

circumstances. One family in whose house he was concealed, dismissed their female  

servants, and the daughters did the household drudgery. 

He was ultimately secreted in the house of a respectable shoe-maker in the  

neighbourhood of Newgate-street, where he underwent a deliberate and effectual  

preparation for his reppearance among those most anxious to seize him. His hair was  

cut and dressed in a particular way, and his forehead and face were burnt with caustic,  

to give him a blotchy and scrofulous appearance. Clothes in the Quaker fashion were  

prepared for him, and they were so made and stuffed as to make him, when dressed in  

them, look very corpulent, and shoes of an ingenious make were contrived to deceive  

all observers as to his real height; when on his feet the shoes seemed to be made with  

double soles and heels, as if for the purpose of elevating a person of very short stature,  

whereas they had in reality scarcely any sole or heel at all, and by this clever  

contrivance those who knew the young man well, would suppose the person who  

stood before them to be much shorter than he really was. 

All these precautionary steps being taken, a passage to America was engaged  

for him on board the Venus, and it was considered prudent for him to apply  

personally, in his new character of the Quaker Pearson (the name assumed by him),  

for his passport. The vessel lay at Gravesend, whither he repaired. In his departure  

from town he again experienced an extraordinary degree of good fortune, for the  

police had received an obscure hint of the place of his concealment, and actually  

visited and searched the house within an hour or two after he had left it, but they had  

no clue whatever to the road he had taken, or indeed positive information of his  

having been actually concealed in the place pointed out to them. 

At Gravesend he applied at the Alien Office for, and received, personally, his  

passport, he then went on board the ship, which remained in the Thames from  

Tuesday to Saturday, during which time it was searched by three different parties of  

magistrates and police officers, accompanied by persons who knew him well, yet he  

never once lost his self-possession, always made himself conspicuous, and had the  

good fortune to be passed over without exciting the least suspicion. He repeatedly  

entered into conversation with the passengers about himself and his escape, in which  

he affected so blunt and dogmatical a style, as to obtain the name of the 'Proud  

Farmer'. 

Having arrived safely in America, he wrote a letter to his mother, which was  

received in July 1817, and gives a most glowing and enthusiastic account of that  

country, as the land of liberty and plenty, says he is in excellent health, and promises  

to have his mother and her family with him very shortly; but in these, as well as in his  

political calculations, he appears to have reckoned with more zeal than wisdom, for in  

October 1817, when Mr Fearon visited America, we find him sunk to the lowest  

possible depth of wretchedness and contempt, a loathsome sot, murdering his time in  

miserable drinking-houses, alike shunned by and shunning all respectable society and  

social intercourse. Mr Fearon's is the last account we have of this intemperate,  

misguided, and guilty young man.

GEORGE BARNETT  

Charged with shooting at Miss Frances Maria Kelly, Actress, in Drury Lane  

Theatre, 17th of February, 1816

THE prisoner was indicted for shooting a pistol loaded with powder and shot  

at Miss F. M. Kelly, during her performance on the stage of Drury Lane Theatre. 

Mr Nathan Harris, on the evening of the 17th of February, was in the pit of  

Drury Lane Theatre, about the eighth row. He saw the prisoner about two rows before  

him, who stood up during the performance of the farce. Miss Kelly and Mr Knight  

were on the stage at the moment, embracing each other, in the characters of Nan and  

Joey, in the farce of The Merry Mourners. After they had parted, Miss Kelly was  

retreating backwards towards the stage door, when witness observed the prisoner,  

elevated above all the people around him, with his right hand pointing slanting  

towards the spot where Miss Kelly was standing. Witness saw a flash come from his  

hand, and heard the report of a pistol, and reached across to him instantly and seized  

him. He said: "I am not the man who fired it; don't take me." Witness said he was sure  

he was the man. At this time the prisoner had dropped the pistol. Witness had seen the  

wadding drop at the moment of the flash. The prisoner was then secured, taken out of  

the theatre, and searched. In his pocket was found a small block-tin case full of  

gunpowder. 

Mr Birnie asked him how he came to fire a pistol in a public theatre. He said it  

was to make an alarm. Witness then asked him how he came to point it so. His answer  

was "She can explain." 

Mr Rorer went to the theatre to ascertain the direction of the shot, and found  

marks of shot (very small) on the lamps on the stage door, near which Miss Kelly had  

been standing. He found some shot in the orchestra, as if they had struck against the  

boards and fallen down. Those which struck the door had left a mark two feet, nine  

inches from the floor.  

Miss Kelly was now sworn, evidently under great embarrassment, and much  

affected. On the night in question she was performing at Drury Lane Theatre, saw a  

light, and at the same moment heard what she supposed to be a detonating ball. She  

had not the least acquaintance with the prisoner to her knowledge; had never seen him  

before that period, nor till this day. She had received two letters signed with the  

prisoner's name. She never answered them, or took the slightest notice of them, except  

to a friend. 

John Baker was in attendance at Drury Lane Theatre on the 17th of February  

and saw Mr Taylor produce the pistol now put in; it appeared to have been recently  

discharged. (The pistol was of the same size as the one used by Bellingham, about six  

inches long.) While conveying the prisoner to Tothill Fields he asked him how he  

could think of doing so rash an act-was it his intention to shoot Miss Kelly? The  

prisoner answered: " I tell you the pistol was not loaded with either ball or slugs." He  

admitted his intention was to shoot at Miss Kelly. 

Samuel Dickons accompanied the last witness in taking the prisoner to Tothill  

Fields. The prisoner said he intended to kill Miss Kelly, in answer to a question from  

Baker. Baker then asked why he intended this. The prisoner answered: "She knows  

very well what it's for." 

Mr Dowling now announced his intention to call evidence to prove the  

insanity of the prisoner. 

John Crockets said he married the prisoner's mother. The prisoner when a boy  

was always reserved and gloomy; he would not play with other boys. At times he was  

very queer, and at his meals would burst out laughing without reason. He went to  

several places, but was always low and melancholy. Three or four days before this  

transaction he was particularly low. 

Mrs Crockets, mother of the prisoner, said he was the son of Mr Barnett, who  

was a waiter at the Piazza Coffee-House. She remembered his return from Sevenoaks.  

He seemed very ill, melancholy and low-spirited. The last week before this affair he  

appeared very uneasy and uncomfortable.  

Mr Norcroft, a law stationer, with whom the prisoner had worked for a year,  

deposed that in his opinion his close application to business had injured his health. He  

was correct in business till a day or two before the offence with which he was  

charged. He then appeared in a very disturbed state of mind. 

Mr Claridge was at Sevenoaks when the prisoner was in his father's  

employment. He once observed the prisoner standing opposite a gentleman's house at  

Sevenoaks, gazing earnestly at the windows. He was surrounded by a mob, who were  

mocking him. He was satisfied the prisoner was not then in his right mind. 

Mr Baron Wood proceeded to sum up the evidence. With respect to the letters  

which had been read, he said that they bore evident symptoms of insanity. 

The jury found the prisoner not guilty, on the ground of insanity, but he was  

detained in custody.

THE ASHCROFTS AND WILIAM HOLDEN  

Tried at the Lancaster Assizes for the Murder of Margaret Marsden and  

Hannah Partington, 5th September, 1817

AT the Lancaster Assizes, Friday, September 5, 1817, JAMES ASHCROFT  

the elder, aged fifty-three, DAVID ASHCROFT, (his brother), aged forty-eight,  

JAMES ASHCROFT the younger, aged thirty-two, WILLIAM HOLDEN, aged forty- 

seven, and JOHN ROBINSON, aged fifty-three, charged with the murder of Margaret  

Marsden and Hannah Partington, in the dwelling-house of Thomas Littlewood, at  

Pendleton, near Manchester, on the 26th day of April previous, pleaded Not Guilty. 

The dreadful atrocity of the murder, unparalleled even by the murder of Marr  

and his family, the hour of the day, (two o'clock in the afternoon) and the public place  

in which the horrid deed was perpetrated, together with the number of the accused,  

and the nicety of the evidence, had excited the very highest curiosity. At seven  

o'clock, the Court was excessively crowded. Within the bar the counsel could with  

difficulty find room to sit or stand. Without the bar all was one entire mass, that stood  

and moved as if inseparable. At eight o'clock precisely the trial commenced. There  

were several challenges. After a jury was sworn, the elder Ashcroft flung his hand  

upwards with a theatrical air, and exclaimed-Not Guilty; his brother followed his  

example, and his son, and Holden. Robinson scarcely raised his hand to young  

Ashcroft's shoulder. 

Mr Cross, in a speech of great force and pathos, opened the case. It was his  

painful duty to detail, and their not less painful duty to investigate, the circumstances  

of a murder, the most atrocious which the experience of any of them had observed.  

That the deed was perpetrated was not matter of question: their only task was to select  

the perpetrators. Before he should detail the evidence, he must say, that there was  

nothing to bring guilt home to Robinson. If therefore incidental proof did not come  

out in course of trial, they must acquit him. 

"The evidence against the elder Ashcroft made it necessary to tell them, that  

the law pronounced the man who in any way aided or assisted the murderer as equally  

guilty with him who actually inflicted the fatal wound. Lord Dacre was found guilty,  

and hanged, for the murder of the gamekeeper, while he himself was in another past  

of the park hunting the deer. He now described the ground, and the evidence. Thomas  

Littlewood has a house in Pendleton, on the side nearest Manchester, and on the west  

side of the road as you go into Manchester from Lancaster. It fronts to the south. Its  

east gable is towards the turnpike-road, and has two windows in it. It is some distance  

from the road. As you go to it from the road you first pass a piece of waste ground,  

you enter then an iron gate, you go along a gravel path, pass along the front of the  

house, and by the kitchen window, which is in the south west corner of the front; you  

then enter into a yard at the west end of the house. In one corner of the yard there is a  

pump, and in the diagonally opposite corner is a lobby into the north west corner of  

the house. A yard within the entrance of this lobby is the door into the house. In the  

kitchen there is but one window to the south, and the shutters leave the whole of the  

lower panes uncovered, the dresser is under the window, the fire is on the east side. 

"Immediately behind the house is a burying-ground, and in the burying-ground  

a chapel. On the other side of the burying-ground runs a path from the road, parallel  

with the gravel-path in front of the house. Considerably in front of the house is Mr  

Watkins's, the Quaker's, house, from whose windows one can have a full view of the  

front of Mr Littlewood's. Going now eastward from the house, and passing alongside  

the gravel-walk, out at the iron-gate, through the waste piece of ground into the road,  

you have Pendleton on your left, and Manchester on your right; before you is a field  

through which a cart-road passes, and of importance in this trial as the Three-nooked  

Field; it is considerably off the road, and rather rises as you go to it from the road: the  

path rises also as you go to Littlewood's house, so that the Three-nooked Field  

commands a full view of Littlewood's house and premises, about a quarter of a mile  

distant. Going along to Manchester, you come to the two-mile-stone, almost as you  

pass opposite to Littlewood's, A few yards further on, you pass the Black Horse  

public-house on your right, and at the one-mile stone, the Horse and Shoe also on the  

right. 

"Now, Gentlemen, you will find the four prisoners, on the evening of Friday  

the 25th of April, met together in a public-house in Manchester, not drinking and  

making merry, but engaged in cool, deliberate, serious, important consultation. You  

will find them on the next day, the fatal day, walking backwards and forwards near  

Mr Littewood's house, sometimes together, sometimes separate, now here, now there,  

at one time on the public road, at another time in the private path. Holden is seen in  

the kitchen between one and two o'clock. The young woman that saw him will swear  

to him. At two o'clock another young woman saw the kitchen window shut, when the  

murder must have been committed. About three, young James Ashcroft, David  

Ashcroft, and Holden, are seen coming out at the iron-gate with bundles in their  

hands. They will be sworn to. They are again seen in the Black Horse, and at the  

Horse-shoe. In the evening young Ashcroft is seen on a play-ground, flushed probably  

with intoxication, displaying a bundle of notes and handfuls of gold. But here I must  

state the deeds perpetrated within the house. The family consisted of Mr and Mrs  

Littlewood, Mrs Marsden, an ancient lady long in the family, and, what is of  

importance, long before well known to the Ashcrofts, and a beautiful young girl, the  

unfortunate Hannah Partington. Mr Littlewood had a grocer's shop in Manchester, to  

which he and his wife regularly went every Saturday morning, when there is always a  

market in Manchester. They did so on Saturday, the 26th, and left Mrs Marsden and  

Hannah Partington in the house. Mr Littlewood had a very considerable sum of  

money in the house, which he kept in a drawer that he never locked. In this sum were  

nineteen guineas in gold. All the money was taken away. The display of property,  

therefore, made by young Ashcroft is pregnant with suspicion, especially when you  

will find it proved that he could not pay two shillings the day before. But old Ashcroft  

is still untouched. He is seen deliberating and walking with the rest, but he is not  

connected with Littlewood's house. This man, then, confined in the same cell with one  

charged with felony, but proved fully innocent, holds frequent conversations on the  

subject with his fellow prisoner, and with that impatience to unload a guilty  

conscience which criminals feel, and which prompts them to make disclosures,  

however foul the deed, or fatal the secret to their associates, he relates to him that he  

kept watch in the Three-nooked-field, while the others executed the atrocious act of  

murder. This disclosure will now be verified to you upon oath, when the real character  

of the witness will be fully made known to you. 

"These circumstances will derive confirmation from the contradictory  

confessions of the prisoners, and the anxiety of Holden to conceal the shirt he had on.  

It must be admitted that the property has not been traced, There were no marks on the  

notes or the gold. Only a seven-shilling piece was taken away, and a seven-shilling  

piece was found on one of the prisoners. Neither is any mark of blood found upon  

their clothes. The evidence consists of the circumstances I have detailed. If they  

satisfy your minds that the prisoners are guilty, you will of course find your verdict  

accordingly, however painful the task: if you can reasonably doubt the force of all the  

evidence that will be laid before you, God forbid I should urge you to convict the  

prisoners." 

Shortly after Mr Cross had begun, he was interrupted while all the witnesses  

on both sides were removed out of Court: they had previously been all placed in the  

gallery to the right of the Court: they were now brought to the witnesses' box, one by  

one, as called, and severally deposed to the following effect. 

William Mortimer.-I remember being in Hilton-street, in the Crown and  

Anchor public-house, from nine to about half past nine of the evening of Friday, the  

25th of April. I sat in the room next to the bar. I saw David Ashcroft coming in, and  

afterwards the other two Ashcrofts and Holden. They sat in the same room with me.  

David Ashcroft and I had repeated conversations. I left them there. The two  

Ashcrofts, sen. and younger, and Holden, sat together. David sat with me. 

Martha Blake.-I keep the Crown and Anchor. I remember Mr Mortimer being  

there on the 25th, in the bar. I was there also. No one was with him for some time.  

The first that came in was David Ashcroft. I don't know the persons or names of the  

three that came in together, and whom I introduced into the bar, I saw them come in at  

the lobby-door; they said nothing, but appeared to be strangers in the house. Mortimer  

was there for about half an hour after I introduced them. David Ashcroft moved into  

the chair that Mortimer got out of. The other persons sat on a form at the table. They  

sat two and two together on opposite sides of the table, facing each other, with their  

hands on the table, the right hand clasped in the left. They were conversing in a kind  

of whisper. I was four or six yards from them. I could not hear what they said. The  

table is a yard across. They continued till about eleven o'clock, an hour after Mortimer  

went away. They were talking so the whole of the time. They had, I rather think, two  

gills a-piece of ale; three gills was the outside of it. I saw no laughing or joking to the  

best of my recollection. I sat and looked at them, wondering what they had so much to  

whisper about. 

John Williams.-I was working in a field on Saturday, the 26th. I saw Davie,  

and James (young James), and Holden, about eleven in the morning. I saw them in  

Sidley, about a quarter of a mile across the fields from Mr Littlewood's, on the right of  

the road from Pendleton to Manchester. I saw them on the road, a carriage-road, not  

turnpike. I was close to the road cleaning a gutter. There is a footway from that place  

through the Three nooked-field to Mr Littlewood's. They stopt with me a little while.  

They talked to me, James most. I now recollect what did not occur to me then, that I  

had seen him before. He had on a blue coat, a pair of boots with a fresh top. David  

spoke, and Holden, but he spoke very little. He was dressed in the same coat as now  

(a blue coat). I am quite sure it is they. They conversed with me about a quarter of an  

hour. Looking round to a house in view, they asked who lived there? They turned  

round as they were going off, and James asked where they could buy an acre of land.  

They said then they heard that Dr. Olier had a house to let. They went off by the path  

towards Littlewood's. 

Richard Lewis.-I live with a tailor in Pendleton. I remember seeing James  

Ashcroft the younger going past our house on the 26th of April. I spoke to him.  

Littlewood's is between our house and Manchester, two hundred yards from my  

house. He owed me three shillings, and I went out and asked them. He gave me one  

shilling. He said he was going to Samuel Chantler's to meet a man who owed him a  

good bit of money, and if he got it he would pay me the rest. 

Thomas Chantler.-My father keeps the Horseshoe, farther from Manchester  

than Littlewood's by three hundred yards. I saw the prisoners at my father's on the  

26th, about one o'clock. James Ashcroft, the younger, came first, and James Ashcroft,  

the elder, a few minutes afterwards; a third person came into the room to them. I can't  

say it was one of the prisoners. I did not see them go out. 

Samuel Burtles.-I remember being near the Three-nooked field the day this  

happened, by three as nearly as I can guess. I saw two sit down in the field on a bank.  

A public path was close by them, a yard from them. It was young James, and another  

that I did not know, I had seen James many a time before. I met old James after I had  

passed them; he was coming towards them. I watched him into the field. He had a  

little bit of a bundle under his coat. I have looked many a time since, and they might  

have seen Littlewood's quite clearly. It is opposite the two windows in the gable on  

the other side of the road. I cannot say if they could see the path in front of the house. 

James Crompton-I live in Manchester. I and my wife were in Pendleton on the  

26th, selling bears (to wipe the feet.) I saw young James, and another whom I don't  

see, at the corner of Leaf-square. He was coning from towards Pendleton, about one  

hundred yards nearer Manchester than Littlewood's. It was rather after one. I then  

went on to Mr Littlewood's to sell them a bear: I saw the old lady, neither Mr nor Mrs  

Littlewood. I went then to the next house, a Quaker's, on the same side, a little into the  

field. There is a view from that house of Littlewood's. It is about thirty yards. I saw  

young James pass by me up to Pendleton. It was on the same side that Littlewood's is  

on. I saw another man on the other side the road. It was not one of the prisoners. I  

went then to the other side the road to several houses. I then saw young James again.  

He was going towards Leaf-square, on the same side with Littlewood's. He passed by  

it as I was on the other side the road. He had boots on. I came over again to the Hare  

and Hounds, on the same side as Littlewood's, and farther from Manchester. I saw  

young James there and this other man. He was coming up towards Littlewood's house  

again. I did not, on that day see any of the other prisoners. 

James Burdekin.-I am a servant of Stephen Tatterson, a butcher, at Pendleton.  

The shop is opposite to Littlewood's, fifty or sixty yards off, on the same side of the  

road. The shop fronts the road. Standing a little out of the shop on the bridle road, I  

can see Littlewood's. It is a horse road (parallel to the turnpike.) I saw old James  

Ashcroft at our shop betwixt one and two. 

Susan Stubbs.-I remember the day. I saw two of the prisoners, the young and  

old, David and James. I knew David by sight, not by name. It was in the afternoon  

between two and three. I saw them at the chapel walk. There is a pump in the yard.  

They were nearer the road. There is a chapel and burying ground. Littlewood's is on  

the one side, and the walk on the opposite side of the burying-ground. A third side of  

the burying-ground fronts to the road. They were going towards the highway, and I  

was going on the path in an opposite direction. 

William Stretch.-I was in Pendleton on the 26th. I saw David Ashcroft and  

young James. It was near the Woolpack. They were in conversation. It stands beyond  

Littlewood's, a quarter of a mile farther from Manchester. It was about twelve. I have  

known David forty years. I know James perfectly. I am sure it was he. I saw them  

again at two going towards Manchester and Mr Lirtlewood's. I have seen Mrs  

Marsden many a time when she kept a public-house. After she declined business, old  

James and David lived near her in Pendleton. Their parents lived in Pendleton. I went  

to school with James. They lived a few roods from Mrs Marsden. They lived so for a  

year or two. 

Hannah Tatterson.-I am a servant of Mr Watkins (the Quaker). I saw Hannah  

Partington at half-past twelve, on the 26th. The shutters of the kitchen-window were  

open. It is the window towards Manchester. I observed it again; the shutters were put  

to, but not fastened; they are on the inside. I could see them aslant. When shut, they  

are close up to the window. When I saw them partly closed, it might be a quarter to  

two. About two they were quite close up to the window. I saw her at the back kitchen- 

door. Mr Watkins's house is across a field and a garden, opposite to Mr Littlewood's. I  

was carrying the furniture into our parlour. I did not see them open. 

Mary Hallows.-I lived on the opposite side of the turnpike road to Mr  

Littlewood's. I went that day to Littlewood's pump. I came across the road, in at the  

iron gate, along by the front of the house, and into the yard to the pump. It was  

between one and two. I saw in at the window as I passed by the front of the house. I  

saw two in the kitchen, Mrs Marsden with her back towards the window, sitting  

between the window and the fire; the other person, a man, sitting with his face  

towards the window. I had a clear view of him. In the yard I saw the young woman  

Hannah Partington. She had come for a shovel full of coals. I had some conversation  

with her. I went back with my pitcher the same way. I did not look into the kitchen  

then. I have seen the man again. He had on a yellow silk handkerchief, a dark coat, I  

think blue, and a dark waistcoat. I saw him again on Monday following. I had told the  

magistrate of what I had seen. I went on the Monday into Littlewood's parlour for the  

purpose of looking if I could know the man. There were more than ten men in the  

room. I looked, and immediately knew him. It was William Holden. Before I spoke,  

he said, "You are wrong, young woman." I said, "I believe that to be the man I saw in  

the kitchen." I have no doubt at all that he is the man. I looked particularly at him as I  

passed the window. I could hardly get past. He looked as earnestly at me. On Monday  

he had on the same handkerchief, I think the same coat, and a lighter waistcoat. He  

spoke before I spoke, but not before I had fixed my eye upon him. He was placed in  

the same situation in the kitchen, and I looked at him in the same way, through the  

window, on the Monday. I can't tell what there is particular in his face, but I am fully  

persuaded that it is the man by his features, and his hair being straight over his  

forehead, and his round shoulders. 

Harriet Towel.-I am servant to Mr Hewitt, who lives in Pendleton. I recollect  

going to Littlewood's about half-past four to see the young woman, Hannah  

Partington. The shutters of the kitchen window were near to. I saw. the old woman  

sitting on a chair at the end of the dresser. Her head was down towards her knees. I  

observed the dresser sprinkled over with blood. I went off immediately, and returned  

again at seven. I looked through the window, and saw Mrs Marsden in the same  

position. I gave the alarm. Not at the first time. I saw through the lower panes, (the  

shutters did not cover the lower panes). 

Mr Thomas Littlewood.-My house is in Pendleton. I have a grocer's shop in  

Salford. My family consisted of myself, my wife, Mrs Marsden, in her 75th year, who  

lived with me ten years, Hannah Partington, in her 20th year, who lived with me two  

years. It was my custom to go, together with my wife, to the shop every market day.  

We went on the 26th about nine in the morning, and returned in the evening at eight. I  

had left about £160; £140 in notes, and nineteen guineas in gold, half-a-guinea, and a  

seven-shilling piece. We left the money in a drawer where we slept. The drawer was  

not locked. I saw the money at seven in the morning. There was plate in the kitchen. I  

heard of the alarm as I came to the iron-gate: I went on in front of the house: the  

shutters were to, but not fastened; there is a loose board to fasten them which the men  

did not understand. I tried the door, it was locked; the yard door was locked, and the  

key in it. I go in at a lobby at the end of the house: I found the key of the door under  

the bear next morning. We took a ladder and went in by an upper window. Some went  

in before me: I went straight into the kitchen; Mrs Marsden was sitting in the chair she  

always occupied; Hannah Partington was lying under the dresser with her knees bent  

towards her head; they were quite dead and cold; the kitchen was covered with blood;  

the poker was bent and very bloody; the cleaver, which was always hung in the  

kitchen, I found in their bed-room, with a little blood on it; the money was all gone;  

the notes were one-pound and two-pound bank of England notes; out of the same  

drawer were taken shirts and silk handkerchiefs; from other drawers in the same chest  

were taken shawls and things belonging to my wife: all could be put into two or three  

small bundles: a person standing in the Three-nooked field can see the house and front  

way as clear as if they were on the premises. 

Cross-examined.-I never saw the Ashcrofts in my life. I did not examine the  

wounds. I could not stand that. There was scattered blood. I did not see any account of  

examinations in the Manchester papers. Partington was a very handsome girl; she had  

no sweetheart. I am sure she had none. 

Mr Olier.-I am a surgeon in Manchester, and have a house near Littlewood's. I  

examined the bodies on the Sunday morning. I found Mrs Marsden's forehead  

fractured, and driven into the brain. It was very likely to have been done by this poker.  

She died of it. It would cause immediate death. The young woman's skull was driven  

into her brain. There were incised wounds on her neck and several parts of her head. It  

would have caused instantaneous death. This cleaver is very like to have done it. Her  

ear was cut through. 

Ely Dyson.-I weave for Messrs. Johnsons in Manchester. I was going with my  

work to them on the 26th, and passing near Littlewood's, I saw three men in the centre  

of the yard gate. They looked as if they were conversing together. They came down  

by the grand walk in front of the house to the iron gate. As I was passing on the road,  

one of them came out at the iron gate. I looked earnestly at him, because he looked  

very earnestly at me. That is the person, the third from me (young James). He was  

dressed in blue. He had a pair of boots on, and a white handkerchief on his neck. The  

tops of the boots were of a yellowish colour. He had a bundle in a light-coloured  

handkerchief. It was not large. It was hanging on his right hand. I see'd that another  

was coming up to the gate, with a bundle in a dark handkerchief in his left hand, a  

little larger than the other. He was close to the gate. He had on a green coat. The  

fourth man from me (David) is the man. The third was nearer Littlewood's. I did not  

see whether he had a bundle. I have not the perfect knowledge of him; but to the best  

of my knowledge, the second man (Holden) is him. As I passed Salford it had struck  

four a few minutes. I did not stand at all on the way. The third man had a blue coat  

and waistcoat, I believe. 

Questioned by the Judge.-I saw only the four prisoners, and I singled out the  

three. 

Mr Joseph Green.-I am the borough-reeve of Manchester. I was present by  

accident when the former witness was shown the prisoners. The four prisoners were  

ordered to walk round the yard, and pointed out to the witness. He singled them out in  

the order in which he had first seen them. He looked from a window at them, and  

afterwards from the gate. I won't say that other persons walked round with them. 

Mary Longworth.-I am going twelve. I remember the day. I saw David  

Ashcroft outside the iron gate. He had on a green coat. He was about two yards from  

the gate. He had a green bundle under his arm. He had his back to the house, and face  

to the road. I rather think it was the arm towards Pendleton (the left.) I was on the  

road. I can't tell the clock. It was after dinner. We dine at twelve. I think it was three  

hours or not quite so long after dinner. I had seen him about three times before. I saw  

him on Monday again. I am sure that I knew him, and that he is the man. I did not  

know the thing was done till Sunday morning, and I then mentioned him to my  

mother. I did not know him by name, but by nature. I thought it was Richard Ashcroft. 

Questioned by the Court.-I saw no other person. There are a number of people  

on the road at that time of the day. I saw nobody as I took notice of. He had a green  

coat on. 

John Dunkerley.-I saw Samuel Burtles the day this happened, in the Three- 

nooked Field. After I had seen him, young James came by me first. I saw old James  

meet young James in the field after that: it was about a quarter or half an hour after I  

had seen Burtles. I had seen them at the same time that I saw Buries. I went on, and  

did not observe what they were doing. Afterwards, about half-past four, I passed by  

the Black Horse. I saw young James come out first, and afterwards old James. Young  

James went down the right side, old James crossed the road and walked along the  

other side of the road. They walked a few hundred yards. Old James re-crossed, and  

joined his son. I came up to them then. I looked at them. They then fixed their eyes on  

me. They must have seen me in the field. David was with them the first time. I was  

born in Pendleton, and have known the three Ashcrofts ever since a boy. They lived in  

Pendleton, and near Mrs Marsden's, next door neighbours. It was twenty years ago.  

They lived some years thus close together. 

Elizabeth Williams.-I am a servant at the Black Horse, on the right hand side  

going to Manchester. On the 26th I saw David Ashcroft at our house. There were  

three of them altogether. I don't know the others. It was about half-past four. The two  

men left first, and left David behind. 

Richard Disley.-I recollect the 26th. I was in Hanover-street, in Manchester.  

There is a playground near, a piece of waste ground. I saw James Ashcroft, jun., and  

Holden there that evening; I can't justly say they came together. It was about five or  

six. I saw James betting four or five shillings at a time. They were betting on the  

tossing up of halfpence. It was with one Davies. He said to Davies he would bet him a  

guinea or half a guinea. "I hear Davies has some gold," he said: and having offered  

the bet, he pulled out some gold, five or six guineas, in his right hand. He had some  

notes in his left hand. He had lost one note. It was a bank of England. I don't know  

how many notes he had in his hand. 

Re-examined.-I don't know how he could get guineas; He is a weaver, a very  

poor trade last year. 

Joseph Ramsbottom.-I was on the waste ground. I saw young James and  

Holden betwixt five and six. James began to game with Davies and other people. He  

began with five shillings, then went to ten, and said to Davies, "I hear thou hast  

guineas, I'll lay thee a guinea I had them;" then he pulled out of his right hand pocket  

some guineas, then with his left hand pulled out a large roll of notes, as large as my  

fist, and said, "Thou hast no occasion to be afraid, here's plenty of guineas and notes,"  

and with that they began to play half guineas. Holden came at seven. He did not come  

with James. I played some, but I gave it up when they came. 

Joseph Nadin.-On the 27th I apprehended all of them, David and young James  

first in St. George's-road. I took them to James's house. I searched the house, and  

found nothing particular. On James's person I found a Bank of England pound note,  

five shillings, and a seven-shilling piece. On David I found seven guineas and a half  

in gold, and five one pound notes. I asked David if he had been the day before at  

Pendleton. He said he had; he had had some drink the night before [Friday], and he  

took a walk. James, too, said he had been at Pendleton. As I was taking them to the  

New Bailey, David asked if I was going to search his house. I said I was. He said  

there was a one pound note in his waistcoat pocket, and desired me to take care of it. I  

found it there. In the evening I apprehended old James in his own house in Silk-street.  

I asked him if he had been at Pendleton the day before, and he said he had. I asked  

what he had been doing there. He said nothing, he had nothing to do, and he had taken  

a walk. I took him in a coach to the Swan. I then took Holden in the street; he said he  

lodged at the White Hart. I took him there and searched him, and found two notes  

[Bank of England], one guinea, and nineteen shillings and sixpence in silver. He said  

he had not been at Pendleton: he said he had no clothes besides: he refused to tell  

where he changed his shirt, saying, it was no business of mine. I took him to the  

police and there he repeated the same things. He refused to tell where he changed his  

shirt; he said at last his dirty shirt was at the White Hart. We got a bundle from the  

landlady of the White Hart, containing foul linen, and stockings and leggings, There  

was nothing particular. At Dunstan's office he said he had changed his shirt at  

Abraham Hase's. We found nothing there; he had taken the dirty shirt away. On  

Monday, David and Holden were brought to Littlewood's. Holden turned away his  

head from the bodies till I held him to it. David looked at them. I took them then to  

the parlour. They were there with several others, and their irons off, when Mary  

Hallows came and saw them, and pointed out Holden. I asked if he still persisted in  

saying he had not been at Pendleton on Saturday. He said, "I do." David said, "Nay,  

thou knowest thou shaved opposite the pole." He answered, "Yes, but I did not like to  

bring myself into a scrape." 

Re-examined.-David lived at Hulme. He had formerly kept the Jolly Butcher,  

in Manchester. There was a handkerchief found in a bed in David's room with blood  

on it. It was betwixt the blankets. Holden, I have heard, has been often in Manchester.  

He lived near Blackburn. I don't know what has become of David's daughter. She was  

before the coroner. He is a widower I believe. David's daughter is grown a woman. 

William Collins.-I have been in the service of Mr Harrison, the Magistrate, for  

seven years, till his death. I went then to live near Bolton. From the top of Park I was  

removing to Manchester, in April, on a Friday (25th). I removed my things in a cart  

belonging to John Astley. When I got to Manchester, Richard Young claimed the cart.  

He had bought it from Astley, but it had not been delivered. He took me up, and got  

me taken to the New Bailey on Saturday forenoon. I was put into the lock-ups. I was  

afterwards discharged on the 3rd of May, on Astley's explanation. I was confined in  

the lock-up. On Sunday night I saw old James. He was in the same cell with me the  

first night. There were other prisoners with us sometimes. At other times we were  

alone. He was taken out to be examined two or three times a day. I told him my case  

over, and he tell'd me his. One day as he came back I said, "How are you going on  

now?" He said, he was in very poor heart, for they brought fresh witnesses against  

him every time. I told him if he was not guilty he had no occasion to be afraid of any  

witnesses. I said, if you are guilty you are sure to be hanged as you are a man. He  

said, "It would go better with him, but he understood they could not find Holden's  

shirt." We were together an hour or two either Tuesday or Wednesday night. He said  

that night, it was very doubtful but what they would all be hanged. This was a  

different time the same day. He said that there was him and his son, and his brother  

David, and Holden, had made it up for to murder and to rob Mr Littlewood's house.  

He said, "that him and his son and Holden went, but when they got nearly to Mr  

Littlewood's house they saw some person, and they were afraid to go in; that he went  

to a butcher's shop for a little pith to rub his corns: then they went past the Hare and  

Hounds, then turned back again: they went down to see a raven kept by a gentleman,  

and then came back again: after they had passed Littlewood's a third time, Holden  

went into a barber's shop to shave himself: they went to buy some cheese and bread,  

and then to a public-house, where they had some beer: "I then," said old James, "Went  

down a lane into a field, near Mr Weston's manufactory, and sat under a hedge in that  

field: I saw my son James and Holden go into Littlewood's: I was a-back of that hedge  

for a signal for them at the window: if I saw anybody go towards Mr Littlewood's  

house, I was to lay my hat on a thorn that I sat under, as a signal: I never saw  

anybody, and never lay my hat on the hedge: after seeing them come out, I went  

towards them." Just as he said that, they put other prisoners in with us, and we never  

had any conversation after that. We were never alone after that. 

James Bendekin (again).-James Ashcroft came into my master's shop between  

one and two, for a bit of pith to rub his corns. I cut him a bit out of a neck of mutton. 

William Evans, the turnkey of the New Bailey.-I recollect Collins being  

brought to the lock-ups, on the 26th April. James Ashcroft was brought on the 27th,  

and put into the lock-ups with Collins. I am not certain whether Ashcroft went down  

into the interior on Tuesday or Wednesday. I speak from my own memory. The dates  

of Collins being committed and discharged are written. I cannot say whether or not  

they were alone together. 

Alive Robinson-I saw Holden and David the day this happened, about one.  

Holden was shaved then by me. He had a blue coat, a blue waistcoat, and a pale  

yellow silk handkerchief about his neck. I had seen him before. He was three or four  

times before in my house on the same errand, a week or two before. He had not been  

that week before. I observed David go along the road at my door. I took notice of him  

because I had not seen him for a year or two before. He looked into the shop, and I  

looked at him through the window. I knew him very well. 

Mary Longworth (called again, and Richard Ashcroft exhibited to her.)-I  

never saw that man. That is not the Ashcroft that I saw at Pendleton. That is not the  

man that we call Richard. 

Here the case for the prosecution closed, and the prisoners severally addressed  

the Court in the following manner: 

James Ashcroft the elder.-It was as impossible for me to do it as to pull the  

sun from the firmament. I never saw the women in my life to my knowledge. 

David Ashcroft.-I am as innocent as the child unborn, and never heard of it till  

I was taken up. 

James Ashcroft the younger said he had never seen the women till he saw  

them dead. He could not tell whether Mrs Marsden was man or woman. "I kissed the  

innocent lips of Hannah Partington, and said, I would meet her in heaven with a dear  

conscience; and so I will, my lord, blessed be God." 

William Holden said, he was innocent as the child unborn. 

James Ashcroft the younger now wished to speak again, and repeated much  

the same things as formerly. 

The following witnesses for the defence were then called: 

Adam Halwell.-I am a weaver, but have been a carter. I took up Collins. I was  

employed by Mr Richard Young. He came out the last day of the sessions. I saw him  

after he came out, and had some talk with him. I asked him-my reason was, that I had  

seen Holden the night of the murder-if he had seen or heard anything of the men  

taken up; he told me he had, he had been in the lock-ups with one of them. I asked  

him what he thought of it. He told me they were as innocent as the child unborn, so  

far as he could learn. I can bring others to prove it. 

Mr William Atkinson Woodward, clerk to his brother, the attorney for the  

prisoners Ashcroft.-I went out and asked the former witness what he had heard  

Collins say? I did not tell him what Collins had sworn. 

Robert Deaken.-I live in Manchester. I have seen all the Ashcrofts before. I  

only know them by sight. I keep a caravan. I saw young James at the White Hart, in  

Tassel-street, on the Thursday before the murder. I saw him pull his pocket-book out.  

He had a bundle of notes in it. I saw him after that pull eight or nine guineas out of his  

pocket. He took out his money to bet with. 

Margaret Mellor.-I am wife of Joseph, a dyer at Pendleton. On Saturday  

afternoon my husband was to be at a funeral, at three o'clock. I went to Edward Law's  

to ask the hour for that purpose. He told me the clock was a quarter fast. I saw it, and  

it was a quarter past three. I saw the three Ashcrofts as I was returning, on the foot- 

path going towards Manchester. 

Hannah Hayes.-My husband, Abraham Hayes, lived in April last in  

Darlington-buildings, in Manchester. I had seen Holden two months before that. I saw  

him on Sunday, the 27th, about ten in the forenoon, at my house. He had brought me a  

shirt to wash the Tuesday before. On Sunday he came for it, and put it on. I saw the  

shirt which he took off. I saw no marks of blood. He took it away on the same day, at  

another time. 

Cross-examined.-I took it up and dropped it into the tub after he was away. It  

was in my house till four. He packed it up in a bundle with a pair of stockings. My  

husband was in the New Bailey two years. 

Margaret Worthington.-I live in Oak-street, I had known Holden. I saw him in  

the afternoon of that Saturday about half-past three in Tib-street, in Manchester. It  

was ringing half-past three. I had been at the grocer's for a pound of soap, and met  

him. He asked me to go to take a cup of ale, but I refused. He was walking slowly as a  

man needs to do. I had seen him five or six weeks before. 

Cross-examined.-Roger Worthington is my husband; he has stood once in the  

pillory; he is not here; he is imprisoned for two years for swindling. 

The wife of one of the other prisoners was proposed as a witness for Holden,  

but his Lordship remarked, that she was inadmissible; they were all on the same  

bottom. 

Mr Nadin.-From the Black Horse to the Unicorn is about a quarter of a mile. 

The Chief Baron summed up the evidence in a very luminous address of more  

than an hour and a half. Towards the conclusion of it, David Ashcroft begged to be  

allowed to say something further, The Chief Baron said it was quite irregular, but he  

would certainly indulge him. He then threw out many incoherent charges against the  

evidence for the prosecution, and begged to have Mr Wright, a magistrate, and Mr  

Witherton, a constable, examined to contradict Mary Hallows. 

The Judge said he would allow it, but insisted that Mr Williams, the counsel  

for the Ashcrofts, and Mr Starkie, the counsel for Holden, should be sent for. 

After a considerable interval Mr Williams appeared without wig or gown, and  

after he had conversed for a considerable time with his Lordship and with the  

prisoners, David Ashcroft said he would leave the case as it was to God Almighty,  

who he hoped would direct his Lordship and the Jury to do justice. 

James Ashcroft, the elder, then ejaculated-O! may God, by his Holy Spirit,  

inspire the Jury to perceive the truth, and to give a true verdict, for we are all innocent  

of this murder. 

The Chief Baron.-I'll listen to anything for which you can offer evidence; but  

you must not be allowed to make speeches of that kind. His Lordship then concluded  

by a very impartial and solemn peroration. 

The Jury in two minutes returned their verdict. James Ashcroft, the elder,  

David Ashcroft, James Ashcroft, the younger, and William Holden-Guilty. John  

Robinson-Not Guilty. 

James Ashcroft the elder.-This is murdering us in cold blood. God will reveal  

this injustice. I pray earnestly that he would, now send two angels to declare upon that  

table who committed this murder. We are innocent, and I will declare so to the last. 

David Ashcroft invoked God, and protested his innocence in the same manner. 

James Ashcroft, the younger.-If I must suffer death for a crime I never  

committed, I implore your honour to look in mercy on my poor wife and children.  

(Here a tremendous shriek burst from a female in the crowd, who, it was found, was  

his unfortunate wife.) 

William Holden.-Silence, silence! (flinging one arm towards heaven and the  

other towards his earthly judge)-There is a God yonder who knows that we are  

innocent, and who will make amends for this. 

The Chief Baron here directed the business of the Court to be proceeded with,  

and the prisoners again repeated their protestations of innocence, and declared all the  

evidence against them to be perjuries and lies. 

The awful sentence of death was then pronounced. They were ordered for  

execution on the Monday following. The Judge declared, that no sensible person who  

had heard the evidence, could have a doubt of their guilt; that he owed it to justice to  

say, that he considered the verdict the only one an intelligent Jury could have  

returned. 

The moment sentence was pronounced, James Ashcroft, the elder, waved his  

right hand, with a white bundle in it, over his head, and exclaimed aloud, "Glory to  

God!" 

David Ashcroft said he hoped God would not allow the injustice done to them  

to be always unknown. 

James Ashcroft, the younger, said he would meet a higher judge with a  

conscience clear of this guilt. 

William Holden vociferated in a wild tone, "There is Mr Nadin, and there is  

Mr Fox (attorney for the prosecution), and before they leave the earth God will punish  

them." 

Thus were these terrific culprits hurried away from the bar, while every person  

in Court was penetrated with a chilling horror at such a dreadful scene. 

The trial lasted from eight in the morning till eight at night. 

After their condemnation these wretched men still persisted in asserting their  

innocence, and every appeal to them to acknowledge their guilt, even with reference  

to the awful moment so fast approaching, the pangs of which might be mitigated by  

relieving their minds from the load of crime under which they laboured, were fruitless  

and ineffectual; they seemed influenced by the most determined feelings of  

unrelenting obdurity, which they reconciled to themselves by fanaticism and  

superstition. 

On the 8th of September, pursuant to sentence, they were led to the fatal  

scaffold. Precisely at a quarter past twelve, the door, leading from the castle to the  

scaffold, opened, and WILLIAM HOLDEN, a strong-built, middle-sized, and grey- 

headed man, was led forth, with his hands pinioned both at the wrists and elbows  

before the cap was placed on his head, he turned round to the immense multitude of  

spectators, and, with a firm and loud voice, said, "I am innocent of the crime for  

which I am to suffer as the child unborn. May God take away all my sins as I am  

innocent of this murder." The cap was then drawn over his face, and the rope tied  

about his neck. 

DAVID ASHCROFT was stationed next him. He spoke to this effect, with  

frequent repetitions of the same observations-"I am glad to see so many persons now  

looking on, as I testify to them that we are all ignorant of this crime. I do protest to  

you all, before God, that we are all innocent. Every one that now sees me is as guilty  

as I am. I would not say so if we had any connexion in any way with the concern; but  

I declare before God that we are perfectly innocent, for which I bless God. My prayer  

to God is, that all our persecutors may be forgiven. May God bless the town of  

Manchester. I know that many thirsted for our blood, but they have sorer hearts than  

we have. We forgive them, and may God give his Holy Spirit to the town of  

Manchester. I pray earnestly that we may be the last innocent persons to suffer from  

this castle. May God find out the true murderers, and may you see them suffer in this  

place, and hear the confession of their guilt. I am now, I trust, going to glory, and I  

would not, for the whole world, die with a lie in my mouth. We are all innocent." 

Here Holden exclaimed "I can answer only for myself. I am innocent." 

JAMES ASHCROFT, the younger, who had in the mean time been brought  

out, and on whom the cap and rope had been put, cried out, "We are all innocent." 

David Ashcroft continued, "And now may the grace of God be with you all,  

now and for ever, Amen." The cap was now put on his face, and the rope was tied  

round his neck. He was a good-looking man. 

JAMES ASHCROFT, the elder, a tall, thin, grey-headed man, came out last;  

when in front of his son, he kissed him with much earnestness, then took his station  

by his side, but said not a word. 

They were all pinioned at the wrists and elbows. They joined the clergyman  

afterwards in repeating the Lord's prayer quite loud. David Ashcroft continued  

praying,-"Lord take away my sins, and save my soul for the merits of Jesus Christ."  

Holden repeated the same expression. All four then began to sing, David Ashcroft  

repeating line after line as they sung: 

I'll praise my Maker with my breath;  

And, when my voice is lost in death,  

My days of praise shall ne'er be past,  

While life and thought and -- 

The drop fell, their voices instantly ceased, and they swung round in the same  

direction. David Ashcroft's mouth being uncovered, his tongue was seen swollen and  

thrust half out on the upper side of his mouth. Old Ashcroft never moved a limb. The  

young man quivered in the convulsions of death about a minute after they had been  

thrown off. There was scarcely a tearless eye among the crowd, while many of the  

women wept aloud. 

These men had for several years subsisted by plunder and gaming, and  

although brought up to the trade of weavers, never sought their livelihood by  

following their business. James Ashcroft, the elder, had formerly been in the  

Methodist connexion, but was expelled several years before, by the members of that  

persuasion for immoral conduct. He was quite a fanatic, and was fully persuaded that  

his faith was such that he could work miracles, and that having once attained the  

perfection of grace, he never could again fall. He once, to illustrate this doctrine of  

faith, thrust his hand and arm into the fire to show that it would not burn, but the  

experiment did not succeed, and he was dreadfully scorched.

WILLIAM HAITCH  

Who Murdered Mary Minting, destroyed himself, and was buried at a cross- 

road

ON Saturday night, the 14th of February, 1818, a little before nine o'clock, the  

proceedings in the examinations then before the sitting magistrate at the public office,  

Bow-street, was suddenly interrupted by the gaoler introducing a man to the  

magistrate, and saying, 'Sir, this man's daughter has just been murdered!' which  

alarming and unexpected communication induced the magistrate to suspend all other  

business, and attend to this communication. The man was so much overcome by grief,  

that his first statement was incomprehensible. He began talking about her and him, as  

if the magistrate was previously well acquainted with the parties and circumstances.  

The magistrate inquired of him where the person lived who had been murdered, &c.  

He replied, she lived with him when she was alive, but now she was no more, having  

been murdered about three quarters of an hour since in his own house by a man of the  

name of WILLIAM HAITCH, and then burst into tears. The magistrate desired him to  

compose himself, that he might be able to relate the circumstances attending the  

horrid deed, that no time might be lost in making exertions to pursue and secure the  

murderer. After a little time he recovered himself; and related that the deceased, his  

daughter, married a man of the name of William Haitch some months since, who  

represented himself to be a man of considerable property; and, to prove which, he  

produced writings, &c. all of which had turned out to be a mere fabrication, to deceive  

himself and his daughter. After this discovery, it was ascertained that William Haitch  

was a married man, and that his wife was living at the time he married his daughter;  

and, in consequence of this discovery, William Haitch was apprehended on a charge  

of bigamy, and taken to the police-office in Hatton garden, where, after undergoing an  

examination, he was discharged. He did not state on what ground he was discharged,  

but said, that both his deceased daughter and his first wife appeared against him. His  

deceased daughter returned home to live with him. 

He stated his name to be John Minting, a carpenter, residing at 24 Union- 

street, Middlesex-hospital. On that evening, about three quarters of an hour previous  

to the time at which he was speaking, his daughter was in a room on the first floor,  

when a young woman, a friend of hers, known by the name of Clarke, went to her and  

told her a person at the door wanted to speak to her, and he had no doubt but Clarke  

told her it was Haitch who wanted her. In about five minutes after, his daughter left  

the room to go downstairs to speak to Haitch; he heard a noise in the passage, which  

he described as a stamping noise, which induced him to go into the passage to  

ascertain the cause, when he discovered his daughter lying down with her throat cut,  

and bleeding most profusely; she was speechless. He gave an alarm, and surgeons  

were sent for, and two arrived in a very short time, but life was extinct. He said it was  

not known with what description of instrument the horrid deed had been perpetrated,  

as none had been found on the spot. It is supposed he must have stopped her mouth  

with something to prevent her making an alarm, as she was not described to have  

screamed or called out for help. 

The magistrate, on hearing these dreadful circumstances related, called all the  

officers in attendance at the office before him, and despatched them in different  

directions in pursuit of William Haitch. 

The police continued on the look-out the whole of the following day, Sunday,  

when, about eight o'clock in the evening, he was recognized by a person who knew  

him at the Jerusalem chapel in Lisle-street, Leicester-square, where he was on his  

knees in apparent fervent devotion; the person who knew him communicating the  

circumstance to some persons present, he was immediately taken into custody, and the  

chapel thrown into the utmost confusion, on which he calmly surrendered and  

confessed his guilt, and expressed, that he had been an unhappy man, but now he was  

aware that he should shortly be rendered happy, and that his life was a burden to him.  

An officer was sent for to whom he was given in custody, and he was conveyed, for  

that night, to St. Martin's watch-house. 

On the 16th February this inhuman monster was brought before the  

magistrates at Bow-street, and being placed at the bar was formally charged with the  

murder of Mary Minting, in Union-street, Middlesex-hospital, on Saturday night, the  

14th February. 

On being questioned by sir Nathaniel Conant, the presiding magistrate, he  

said, that he was born in Berkshire, was a stocking weaver by trade, and served his  

apprenticeship in Lambeth. His father was a coachman. At present, he said, he  

followed no business. The following witnesses were examined: 

Rebecca Clarke deposed, that she lodged at No. 24 Union-street, Middlesex- 

hospital. The deceased, Mary Minting, and her father, lived in the same house. About  

eight o'clock on Saturday evening, witness was going out upon an errand, and saw the  

prisoner near the door. He spoke to her, and said he wanted to speak to Mary,  

meaning Mary Minting. She had seen him before, and knew that he was acquainted  

with Mary Minting. Witness returned to the house, and fetched the deceased from  

upstairs. The prisoner spoke to her in a low tone of voice, as he stood on the threshold  

of the door. Witness did not hear what the prisoner said, but she heard the deceased  

say, 'It is of no use; I directed the letter for Mr Haitch, and not for Mrs Haitch.' She  

then returned into the house, and went upstairs a little way, but came down  

immediately with her sister and witness, and again went to the door. The prisoner was  

still there; and on seeing them all together, he said, 'What do you all do here?' Witness  

said nothing, but went upstairs, and the sister of the deceased crossed the street on an  

errand, leaving the deceased and the prisoner alone, and close together in the passage.  

Witness had just got up to the garret door, when she heard the noise of stamping and a  

noise like someone falling. Witness did not go down again, she was prevented by her  

mother. 

Elizabeth Minting, sister of the deceased, deposed that she was at home on  

Saturday night, and heard the last witness tell her sister that the prisoner wanted her.  

Witness went down shortly afterwards and saw the prisoner in the passage with the  

deceased. She left them together, and went out. On her return she saw her sister  

weltering in her blood in the passage. The prisoner was gone. The head of the  

deceased was nearly severed from her body, and the passage swam with blood. The  

deceased was incapable of speaking. There were several persons in the passage. 

Elizabeth Montague deposed to the same effect. 

Mrs Streeling deposed, that on Saturday evening, about eight o'clock, she was  

standing at the door of an opposite house to that in which the murder was committed.  

It was a narrow street; she heard a noise or scuffle in the passage, and immediately  

saw a man rush out: he shut the door after him, but did not latch it. She went over  

directly, and hearing more noise in the passage, she went in, and saw the deceased;  

the man walked quickly away, but did not run; she did not see his face. Witness saw  

the mother of the deceased in the passage, and heard her cry 'My child, my child.' 

James Streeling, a boy about thirteen, deposed to the same effect. 

John Wiltshire was in his house at No. 12 King-street, Drury-lane, on Saturday  

night; his wife was present. The prisoner, whom he had known before, came in about  

seven o'clock, and asked them, as usual, how they were? Witness's wife spoke to him  

of his two wives and said there was a warrant out against him from St. Giles's (to the  

officers of which parish his first wife had applied for relief); upon which he said, that  

he had that about him that should be the death of the first man or officer that laid hold  

of him, and he offered to bet witness's wife a shilling that he would produce it, but she  

would not bet. 

Witness's wife talked to him about his wives, and he said, 'd--n the wives; I'll  

soon get rid of both the old and the new.' The last words he said going out of the door  

was, 'Don't you be surprised if you hear of my sharing the same fate as the unhappy  

wretches on Tuesday morning,' (meaning some persons who had been executed on  

that morning). 

The last witness's wife was then examined. She corroborated the testimony of  

her husband, and added, that when the prisoner talked of being hanged, he told her to  

buy him a silken cord instead of a hempen one: she said she would. 

Mary Smith, who lodged with the last witnesses, confirmed their testimony,  

and stated that the prisoner had with him a top brown coat and a short fustian jacket. 

Henry Adkins, the officer, deposed, that he received information that the  

prisoner was at Jerusalem Chapel, Lisle street, Leicester-fields. On the evening of the  

15th, hbe went and apprehended him after the service: in taking him to the watch- 

house, he said to him, 'How could you do such a deed?' The prisoner said, 'What  

deed?' Witness said, 'That's best known to yourself.' The prisoner then said, 'I went to  

do a deed, but whether I did it or not I cannot tell.' Witness then asked him whether  

the clothes he then had on were the same in which he did the murder, and he said 'yes.'  

Witness next asked him what instrument he had used, and whether it was a knife? he  

said 'no:' and on being asked if it was a razor, he made no answer, but subsequently,  

after some hesitation, said he had thrown the instrument into the Thames. On the  

morning of the present examination, prisoner asked the witness if he had been to  

Union-street, and had seen Minting. (meaning the deceased), adding, 'Poor thing, I  

dare say she must be dreadfully mangled.' 

Sir Nathaniel Conant now addressed the prisoner, and directed him to attend  

while the evidence was read over to him, intimating at the same time, if he had any  

question to put, his wish should be attended to. 

The prisoner asked Mrs Streeling whether she could swear to his person; to  

which she answered, as she did before, that she could not; he put no other question. 

A surgeon was then called, who proved that he had seen the deceased. The  

main artery was separated as well as the windpipe. This was the cause of death. 

The witnesses were then bound over to appear at the sessions against the  

prisoner. 

Adkins, who had been to the prisoner's lodgings, and had brought from thence  

some clothes, now asked him if he would have them delivered to himself, or taken  

back to the place where they were found. He said he wished to put them on, and they  

were handed to him. On being searched, one half of the Observer newspaper was  

found next his skin, in which was an account of the murder, and a description of his  

person: it appeared to have been torn from the shutters of the office.-At the close of  

the examination, he was fully committed for trial. 

He expressed himself very anxious to have the half of the Observer back; said  

he was sorry his time was so long to live, as he deserved to be hanged; confessed that  

he had been a very bad man, and observed that he supposed poor Mary's body was in  

a sad mangled state. 

The following particulars respecting this horrid deed were made known after  

his committal:-Haitch was married to his first wife, who was then living, when she  

was about forty-five years of age, and he was but nineteen. At the time of the murder  

he was thirty-four years of age, and married the deceased when she was but nineteen  

years of age. He separated from his first wife about two years before, and from that  

time passed as a single man. The deceased had been a constant attendant at the New  

Jerusalem Chapel, in Lisle-street, Leicester-square, where the doctrines and forms of  

religious ceremonies propagated by the late Baron Swedenbourg are observed, for  

about twelve months, and where her father and family occasionally went, in  

consequence of the deceased having espoused the sentiments of that peculiar sect. The  

prisoner had been a constant attendant at the chapel for about six months, where he  

became acquainted with the deceased, and they were married at Mary-le-bone church  

on the 10th of November, 1817: they only lived together five days, in con sequence of  

the deceased and her family discovering that he was a married man, and that his wife  

was living. About three or four weeks before the fatal deed, he was apprehended on a  

charge of bigamy, and taken to Hatton-garden office, from which charge he was  

discharged owing to there being no witness present at the weddings, the only evidence  

produced being the two wives, and the certificates of their marriages. 

Although this wretched culprit, while under examination at Bow-street,  

assumed an air of negligence, and expressed a hope that he should have more fortitude  

than to become his own executioner; yet it was pretty evident to those who watched  

his conduct, that it partook of a character conveying powerful suspicion. While in  

custody of Adkins, he was handcuffed and ironed, and two persons were continually  

kept to watch over him; and when the gaoler of Bow-street delivered him into the  

custody of the keeper of Newgate, he intimated that he ought to be watched with  

considerable caution. 

On the morning of the 20th of February, when he was called out with the other  

prisoners who were to be tried, from the yard, he ran to the privy, and shortly  

afterwards was found with his throat cut from ear to ear, and his head nearly severed  

from his body. The place, as might be expected, was a complete gore of blood. Near  

to him was found a crooked razor, and not far from it a document, written by himself,  

in which it was stated, that the razor with which he perpetrated the horrid deed was  

the same with which he murdered Mary Minting, and that he had it secreted about him  

ever since, although he had told Adkins, upon his apprehension, that he had thrown  

the instrument, with which he committed it, into the Thames. The paper also stated,  

that he intended to have murdered Mary Minting with a pistol-that it was his intention  

first to have shot her, and next himself. The body was removed into the yard, and the  

circumstance occasioned the greatest alarm and consternation. 

An inquisition was taken in Newgate, before the city coroner, upon view of the  

body, and the following evidence was, detailed: James Manning deposed, that he was  

wardsman to the divisional apartment in which the prisoner was confined. About half  

past eight o'clock on Friday morning, the deceased, with several others, had been  

called down preparatory to their being brought into the court of the Old Bailey, to be  

arraigned for trial. The deceased, in passing along the yard, made no observation, but  

stepped quickly into the privy. About two minutes had elapsed, when a person named  

Wingfield, belonging to the ward, called out to him: no answer being made, he ran to  

the door of the privy, which he at first found difficult to open, but forcing it, he beheld  

the deceased upon his knees, with his head reclined upon his arm, and with the latter  

upon the seat. The head of the deceased was almost severed from the body. A razor,  

covered with blood, was lying close by on the floor, and the place was filled with  

gore. The deceased, while under his care, appeared perfectly sane, and three minutes  

had scarcely elapsed from the time he went into the privy until he was discovered  

dead in the manner described. 

Davis, one of the principal turnkeys, produced the razor; on one side of the  

handle was engraved the name of 'Gatty,' as was also that of 'Haitch,' but this was  

scratched. On the reverse was that of Gatty only. The blade was completely blunted at  

the edge, and crusted with blood. 

Mr Box, the city surgeon, said, when called upon, he found the main artery of  

the throat divided so completely, that it must have produced instantaneous death. He  

had twice examined the deceased since his commitment, with regard to the state of his  

mind, and he believed him to be perfectly sane. 

Mr Crown, keeper of the prison, here addressed the jury:-he said, that as a  

heavy responsibility was naturally attached to him, it would, perhaps, he deemed  

necessary that he should account for the possession of the razor by the deceased. 

Reports upon the subject had been circulated, and among other things, it was  

said that the instrument had been brought in and delivered to Haitch by his last  

employer. He would therefore produce two persons who could give evidence on this  

point. When the deceased was brought into the prison, he inquired of the Bow-street  

officers whether he had anything dangerous about him? He was answered, no, as a  

strict search was more than once made of his person. He desired one of the turnkeys,  

to minutely examine him, which was done, and nothing found. The deceased on  

Wednesday afternoon smoked his pipe, and evinced great levity. He gave him a  

religious tract, and endeavoured to impress upon him the awful situation in which he  

was placed. The deceased returned the book the next morning, saying he had perused  

it with great attention, and had derived much satisfaction and consolation. 

Other witnesses deposed to the fact of his having been searched: nothing was  

found upon him till after his death, when a letter was discovered, which was  

addressed to the mother of his murdered wife. The letter purported that he had wished  

to kill himself and his wife together, and that he still hoped to meet her in another  

world. 

The inquest brought in a verdict of felo de se, and the felon was ordered to be  

buried in the cross-way, at the top of the Old Bailey. 

At the appointed time a great concourse of spectators assembled around  

Newgate, to witness the consignment of the murderer's remains to an unconsecrated  

grave. Men were employed early in the morning to dig a hole to receive the body,  

between five and six feet deep, and they completed their task by seven o'clock. The  

Under-Sheriff, accompanied by a friend, proceeded in a coach to the felons' door,  

preceded by a cart, the back part of which was put towards the felons' side door; and  

shortly after, the body of the murderer, which had been placed on a shutter, was  

brought out, and elevated in such a position on the cart, as to permit the populace to  

command a distinct view of it. The spectacle was of an appalling nature. The body  

was in the same state as when he became his own executioner-none of his clothes,  

excepting his coat, having been removed; it was very bloody, and was calculated to  

excite horror and disgust in the mind of every beholder. In the shutter on which he lay  

upon his back, a hole had been perforated, and the representation of a gallows made of  

wood had been introduced into it, and it was so constructed as to hang immediately  

over the face of the culprit. The razor with which he effected both the murder and  

suicide was suspended from the gallows. The executioner stood up at the feet of the  

corpse; and on the arrival of the cart at the spot selected to receive the mangled  

remains, the Under-Sheriff ordered that time should be given for all present to have a  

view of the body, and he further ordered one of the executioner's attendants to hold up  

the gallows and razor to public view, which he did, and the populace having gazed  

with much attention on the sight before them, for a few minutes, without betraying the  

slightest sensation of sympathy or pity, the executioner turned up the shutter, and the  

body was thrown into the pit right upon its face, with clothes, double irons, and every  

thing he had on at the perpetration of the horrid deed. The gallows and razor were  

thrown in after him.

MICHAEL SHIPMAN  

Tried and convicted for administering drugs to a young lady, for an  

infamous purpose, 1818

AT the Leicestershire assizes, in 1818, Michael Shipman, a dissenter, a man of  

property, resident in Hinchley, within thirteeen miles of Leicester, was brought to trial  

on the complaint of a beautiful girl, named Emma Dalton. He took his seat at the table  

opposite the witness's box, and had frequent communications with his solicitor during  

the trial, which lasted seven hours. 

The indictment charged him with having assaulted Miss Dalton, and  

administered laudanum, or some other exciting drug, for the purpose of producing  

unconsciousness, insensibility, or excitement, in that young lady, with the view of  

rendering her subservient to his passions. There were other Counts in the indictment,  

one of which charged him with a common assault. 

Mr Clarke opened the case, which he said was the most aggravated one he had  

ever heard. He made no other comment upon it than that the evidence would be found  

incontrovertible; that it would disclose a system of villainy the most depraved; and  

that the honour of the sex and common humanity, demanded an attention from the  

jury incapable of being prejudiced by an address to their feelings, unsupported by  

powerful testimony. 

He then called the prosecutrix, who, upon getting into the box, trembled  

exceedingly. It would be difficult to describe the effect produced by her appearance;  

in her countenance, which wore the marks of thought and sorrow, could be traced the  

evidences of former happiness. The spectators turned with horror to her abuser, who  

presented a hidous contrast. His head was covered with lank red hair; he now and then  

"grinned horribly a ghastly smile," especially when his counsel was proceeding to  

draw inferences from the evidence which led him to entertain a vain hope. 

The following is the substance of Miss Dalton's evidence:- I am twenty-one  

years of age. My father was a merchant, and resided at Birmingham; but, from the  

embarrassed state of his circumstances, found it necessary some time ago to leave the  

country. My sisters and I, to whom he had given a good education, remained at home.  

Early in September, I went into the family of Mr Shipman, as governess to his three  

daughters, the eldest of whom is nearly fourteen, the second ten, and the third seven.  

On Friday, the 19th of December, I was violently ill with a pain in the chest, and a  

heaviness, and I retired to my room about seven o'clock. Between eleven and twelve,  

the servant, Clara Johnson, came to ask me how I was. Having experienced no  

abatement of pain, I told her I was exceedingly ill, and begged that she would ask  

whether I should bathe my feet in warm water. On her return the girl told me that her  

mistress had sent to her master, and he would be up directly. Before I had time to  

express my disapprobation of so extraordinary an intention on the part of Mr  

Shipman, he entered the room. Having covered my head with the bed-clothes, and  

made no reply to his inquiry how I was, he pulled down the clothes, took both my  

hands, and placed me by force on my back, desiring me to look at him full in the face.  

Again he asked me what was the matter with me? I said I had a violent pain in my  

chest. He asked where my chest was; and I said he must know; and that he was trifling  

with me. When Clara left the room, he put his hand over the upper part of my person,  

and told me the pain was not in my chest, but in my stomach. My endeavour to  

remove his hand was quite fruitless, for I was extremely weak, and my breath was so  

violently affected as to render me wholly incapable of remonstrating with him. The  

first words I addressed to him when he entered the room were, that I had not sent for  

him, but for Mrs Shipman. When the girl returned with the brandy, he removed his  

hand from my bosom, and obliged me to take some brandy, after which I entreated  

him to leave the room, which he at first refused, but afterwards consented to do,  

declaring, however, that Clara should go, and that no one should stay with me,  

whether I was well or ill. Both went away together. About five o'clock in the morning  

I awoke in great pain, and was quite hysterical; my cries awoke Mr Shipman's eldest  

daughter, who jumped out of bed and ran to her parents' room. Mr Shipman came in a  

few moments after his daughter had left the room, but said nothing, and went away  

immediately. Clara then came, and said her master had ordered her to dress and take  

me down. I refused to go, saying to the girl that the bed was better for me, as I was ill.  

He called repeatedly to know whether I was coming down; and I, finding objections  

useless, told the girl she might dress me and take me down. He was at the bottom of  

the stairs with a candle in his hand; he had on a night-cap and a waistcoat, but no coat,  

and he assisted the girl in bringing me into the room, where, before a large fire, there  

was a sofa, on which he placed me. I complained of the excessive heat, on which he  

sent Clara for the tea-things, and said the fire was not hotter than I could bear it. My  

breath grew worse, and I felt dreadfully ill. At that moment the girl entered with the  

tea-things. He insisted on my taking tea, and raised me up for the purpose of doing so.  

Upon compulsion I took two cups, and he said I should have a third. There is a  

cupboard in the room, where different kinds of drugs are kept, amongst which is  

laudanum. Before he brought the third cup, he went to that cupboard and filled it  

there. I refused to take it. He said I should, and raised me up, and presented the cup to  

my mouth. I perceived the smell was nauseous, and again refused. He declared that I  

should, or he would drench me with it: at the same time he took hold of me by the  

nose, forced it down my throat most violently, and threw me down on the sofa. He sat  

on the sofa. One of my teeth was broken, but whether it was at that time or not, I don't  

know. Clara came in while he was drenching me with the tea, and he desired her to  

take the bone out of my stays. I was in violent agony, and I motioned her not to do it  

while he was in the room. He went out. I thought I was expiring. Clara, on removing  

the bone, retired. He came and sat at the foot of the sofa, and gave his hand more  

unrestrained liberties than before upon my person. The servant came in, and he  

removed his hands, with one of which he had held both of mine, in answer to his  

inquiry, she said she had come to prepare the room for the family. He desired her to  

remove me on the sofa into the kitchen. As well as I could I told her to carry me to  

bed, but he said it was useless, for I should not go, and he removed me into the back  

kitchen on the sofa, near the fire, and put the shutters up; Clara went about her  

business, and he sat beside me, and repeated the liberties I alluded to. At that moment  

Clara came in. There was a nauseous taste in the last cup of tea I took, which was not  

in either of the other cups. I have since smelt laudanum in tea, and it is my firm belief  

that laudanum was mixed in the third cup. My illness increased, and Clara, by his  

order, put me to bed, where I grew worse. Mrs Shipman came in on hearing me  

scream, and Mr Shipman made me take castor oil. What occurred from that time till  

four in the afternoon, I was wholly unconscious of. On Sunday I felt better, and  

contrived to sit up to dinner, after which Mrs Shipman proposed to her husband to go  

to chapel. I went up to my own room, Mrs Shipman went to chapel and Mr Shipman  

came to me while I was lying on the bed, and insisted on my going down. I told him I  

would cry Murder if he persisted in removing me, for I was dreadfully ill. He used all  

the persuasive arguments he could to induce me to go down; said he had not gone to  

chapel on my account, and all the rest were out. I said he was a bad man, and  

supplicated him to leave me. Finding that I was bent upon not going down, he brought  

up a large goblet full of brandy and water. I said it was not brandy, and refused to take  

any. He threatened to drench me with it, and stood over me till I drank it every drop. I  

was then in hysterics, had dreadful fits of crying, and lost all recollection of what  

occurred. On the following morning I was awoke by Mr Shipman's kisses. He told me  

how much his wife and children loved me, and that he loved me more ten times. I  

complained of the insult he had offered me, and said I should inform Mrs Shipman of  

his vile conduct. I informed Mrs Shipman of it. My illness continued with unabated  

violence; and though I expressed a wish to see Mr Power, the surgeon, and another  

medical man, I was denied by Mr and Mrs Shipman. At length I saw Mr Power, on  

Tuesday: told him they had given me different kinds of medicine; that I had requested  

to see him, but had been refused; that I was very unhappy; had been used very ill, but  

had neither time nor power to tell him more. I continued delirious for a fortnight; the  

last thing I remembered was Mr Power's coming. From Mr Shipman's I was removed  

to the vicarage in a sedan, until I got better. In my bed-room there was no bell. There  

was, I believe, a key in the door, but Mrs Shipman begged I would never lock the  

door, through fear of fire or the illness of the children. I stayed a week at the vicarage,  

from whence I went to my aunt's, at Birmingham. Before the Friday I had taken salts  

and calomel and other drugs, for a cold, by desire of the prisoner. 

In her cross-examination by Mr Denman, Miss Dalton merely repeated her  

former statement. The object of the learned Counsel was to obtain some admissions  

which might leave an impression that the prisoner's conduct was dictated by a feeling  

of compassion, which was mistaken for love. The witness again stated, that all  

resistance was impossible; her breath, as well as strength, having been affected, and  

an unnatural sensation having, in consequence of the drugs, pervaded her. 

Clara Johnson deposed, that she lived as servant to Mr Shipman, and gave an  

account of the conduct of her master perfectly confirmatory, as far as it went, of that  

given by Miss Dalton. She described the state of health of the young lady as most  

deplorable, and remembered that when she told her master how ill she was, he said  

that was just what he wanted. She added, that when her mistress went to chapel on  

Sunday, her master came to her and sent her out with the child before she had time to  

clean herself; and that when Mr Power came to see Miss Dalton, Mr Shipman flung  

down his hat in a great rage, and said he was undone. 

In her cross-examination she but increased the evidence against the prisoner.  

She heard Miss Dalton say in her delirium, that her master had broken her tooth; and  

while she was deprived of her senses, Mr Shipman put his hand upon her person. 

Martha Hey, the nurse who attended Miss Dalton on Wednesday night,  

deposed, that she was quite delirious, and that Shipman had acted while she was so in  

the manner described. Again he came, and asked whether Miss Dalton had asked for  

him? to which witness replied, that she had, in her delirium. "Ah, poor girl," said he,  

"she always asks for me." 

Mr Power, surgeon, of Hinckley, said he visited Miss Dalton on Tuesday the  

23rd of December, when he found her very faint. She had a small and frequent pulse,  

and complained of a pain in the head, and coldness in the feet, and looked excessively  

ill. She made the communication to him which she had stated to the Court. On  

Wednesday morning she was much worse: she had spent a delirious night, her pulse  

had increased in action, and the witness recommended another opinion to be taken.  

She was very delirious, but her complaint was attended with lucid intervals. Witness  

was not prepared to say that laudanum would produce libidinousness-a small dose  

would produce excitement-a large one stupor. 

Mr Denman for the defence, attempted to show that Miss Dalton must have  

construed the wish to render medical assistance into nothing else than love, and the  

application of the necessary medicines for the correction of a natural disorder into the  

administering of philters and the force of mighty magic. He showed how dangerous it  

was to allow the child to be separated at so perilous an age from her natural  

protectors, and attributed the madness of the girl to the impetuous current of her  

passions. 

The Judge summed up the evidence, and quickly laid before the jury the  

several iniquities which there had been such abundant proof. He particularly dwelt  

upon the example to a wife and children in the complicated baseness of Shipman's  

conduct to an helpless and unprotected female. 

The Jury returned a verdict of-Guilty, and the Judge immediately passed  

sentence to the delight of the whole court. The unnatural villain was adjudged to pay a  

fine of £100, and to be imprisoned for twelve calendar months.

ABRAHAM THORNTON  

Acquitted on a Charge of murdering a Girl, and on being rearrested  

claimed Trial by Battle, April, 1818

THE particulars which we are about to record of the violation and murder of  

the virtuous and beautiful Mary Ashford,-whose melancholy fate even libertinism  

itself must deplore, - reached the remotest corners of the kingdoms with almost  

electric force, and excited feelings of melancholy and regret for the fate of the  

unfortunate girl, and of indignation and disgust at the crimes of the fiendish destroyer  

of her virtue and her life, which still exist with unabated ardour, and will long  

continue to thaw tears of deep affliction wherever her melancholy tale shall be told. 

Mary Ashford was a girl of the most fascinating manners, of lovely person,  

and in the bloom and prime of life; she was only twenty years of age, at the period of  

this horrid transaction, and up to that time had borne the most irreproachable  

character; she was of poor but honest parents; her father was a gardener at Erdington,  

near Birmingham, and lived below the Cross-keys. She had been dwelling for some  

length of time, under the protection of her uncle, Mr Coleman, a small farmer,  

residing a short distance from Erdington, at a place called Langley-heath, situate in  

the county of Warwick. Mary was well known and highly respected in Erdington, and  

in the very neighbourhood of the spot where she fell a victim to the brutal lust of a  

detestable ravisher, and the murderous grasp of a ferocious assassin. 

The human form was never moulded into finer symmetry than that which  

distinguished the person of Mary Ashford. She was five feet four inches high,  

remarkably lively, of a sweet and amiable disposition, mild and unassuming in her  

manners, and strictly virtuous in her principles and conduct; it was, however, proved,  

by an eminent surgeon, who examined the body soon after it was taken out of the pit  

in which she was found murdered, that some man had had sexual intercourse with her,  

but that immediately previous thereto, she had been a pure virgin. 

This unfortunate maid, went on the 26th of May, 1817, from Mr Coleman, her  

uncle's, at Langley, where she lived, to the market at Birmingham. On her way, she  

called upon her intimate friend Hannah Cox, at Erdington, and arranged that she  

should be back early in the evening, to go to a dance at Tyburn, which usually took  

place in a public-house there, at the conclusion of an annual feast, of a friendly  

society. She was not in the habit of attending dances, but she did attend at this dance. 

Abraham Thornton (the prisoner) was there, and was so captivated with the  

figure and general appearance of Mary Ashford, that he inquired after her friends, and  

being informed who they were, he was heard to say, 'I have been intimate with her  

sister, and will with her, or die by it;' and this speech was proved on the trial to have  

been privately uttered by him to two of his acquaintances. The first part of this  

sentence appeared, however, to. be nothing more than the boast of libertinism-for it  

was proved by strict inquiry, that his insinuations respecting Mary Ashford's sister  

were wholly groundless. He danced with the ill-fated girl, paid her the greatest  

attention, accompanied her from the dance homewards, and was afterwards seen with  

her at a stile, on the side of the high road, at three-quarters past two o'clock in the  

morning. Before four o'clock she called on her friend Cox, at Erdington, and was  

perfectly calm, in good health and spirits, and composure of mind: she left her friend  

about four o'clock. 

On her leaving her friend Cox at Erdington, at this time, between four and five  

o'clock in the morning, of the 27th May, 1817, in her way across the fields to Langley,  

about a mile distant from Erdington, the fatal deeds were perpetrated which formed  

the subjects of the following trials; for, a short time afterwards, her body was found in  

a pit, near Penn's mill, in the parish of Ashton, in such a situation as proved that she  

must have been thrown in while in a state of insensibility, and her clothes being  

covered with dirt and blood, led to an examination, from which resulted the dreadful  

and appalling fact, that her person had been violated by brutal force, previous to her  

being thrown into the pit. 

On a minute examination of the ground contiguous to the pit, traces of the  

footsteps of a man and of a woman were discovered impressed in the earth, and a  

careful and intelligent investigation distinguished where the parties had run, walked,  

and dodged. The footsteps of the woman were ascertained to be those of Mary  

Ashford, from a comparison with her shoes, which, with a small bundle she had with  

her were found lying on the brink of the pit, and the footsteps of the man were  

remarkable from the peculiar manner in which the soles of the shoes were nailed, and  

from the loss of certain nails from each shoe. in addition to these traces, a track of  

blood, marked in drops in the immediate neighbourhood of the pit, but gradually  

increasing in quantity, led the observers to the foot of a tree, at some distance, where  

the ground was marked with the impression of a human figure, with the arms and legs  

extended, and marks corresponding with the knees and toes of man in contact  

therewith. Near the centre of this mark was a very considerable mass of coagulated  

blood, and from other impressions on the ground, it was clearly perceived that the  

ravisher, having completed his brutal purpose, had taken his victim in his arms, and  

that from her body had dropped those streams of blood which were traced to the brink  

of the pit-for on the path parallel to the line of blood, were discovered traces of the  

man's footsteps, while there was a total absence of those of the woman; and so evident  

was it that but one person had gone this way, and that by the path only, that the dew  

was not brushed from the grass over which the blood had dripped, which, to use the  

words of one of the witnesses, must have been the case, had only a frog or a mouse  

passed over it. 

These discoveries being made, the most active steps were taken to detect and  

bring to justice the perpetrator of such frightful crimes; and from the well-known  

looseness of his character, his having been seen with her in the fields within a short  

time of her death, and, above all, from the gross and scandalous declaration of a  

determination to be intimate with her, suspicion immediately and unequivocally  

pointed out as the ravisher and murderer of Mary Ashford, her volunteer companion  

in the dance, Abraham Thornton. 

This man was the only son of a bricklayer at Castle Bromwich, in the country  

of Warwick, and had from his infancy up to the time of the dreadful catastrophe,  

worked with his father as an assistant in the business. He was about twenty-five years  

of age, five feet seven inches in height, and of a ferocious and forbidding aspect. His  

natural thickness was greater than common, but excessive corpulency had swollen his  

whole figure into a size rather approaching deformity. His face was swollen and  

shining, his neck very short and very thick, but his limbs were well proportioned. He  

was a great adept in gymnastic games, and accounted one of the strongest men in the  

country. So athletic was his form, that his arm-pits did not possess the usual cavities,  

but were fortified with powerful ligaments. 

Thornton was immediately taken into custody, and on an examination of his  

clothes, marks of blood were found upon them, corresponding with those on the  

unfortunate girl. His shoes were compared with the traces of footsteps in the fields,  

and found to agree therewith, beyond all shadow of doubt, and indeed he artfully  

confessed that he had been connected with Mary, but by her own consent; this  

declaration was, however, regarded as a subterfuge. 

On the examination of the prisoner on the 27th May, before William Bedford,  

Esq., magistrate for the county of Warwick, the foregoing facts were fully proved, and  

the prisoner was committed for trial, having previously made the following  

deposition: 

Tyburn, in the Parish of Ashton, in the County of Warwick.-  

The voluntary examination of Abraham Thornton, of Castle Bromwich, in the  

said parish of Ashton, taken before William Bedford, Esq., one of his majesty's  

justices of the peace for the said county, who saith that he is a bricklayer, that he came  

to the Three-tuns, at Tyburn, about six o'clock last night, where there was a dance;  

that he danced a dance or two with the landlord's daughter-but whether be danced  

with Mary Ashford or not he cannot recollect. Examinant stayed till about twelve  

o'clock; he then went with Mary Ashford, Benjamin Carter, and a young woman, who  

he understood to be Mr Machin's housekeeper, of Erdington; that they walked  

together as far as Potter's. Carter and the housekeeper went on towards Erdington.  

Examinant and Mary Ashford went on as far as Mr Freeman's; they then turned to the  

right, and went along a lane till they came to a gate and stile, on the right-hand side of  

the road; they went over the stile, and into the next piece, along the foot-road. They  

continued along the foot-road four or five fields, but cannot tell exactly how many.  

Examinant and Mary Ashford then returned the same road. When they came to the  

gate and stile they first got over, they stood there ten minutes or a quarter of an hour  

talking; it might be then about three o'clock. Whilst they stood there, a man came by  

(examinant did not know who)-had on a jacket of a brown colour. The man was  

coming along a foot-path they had returned along. Examinant said, "Good morning"  

and the man said the same. Examinant asked Mary Ashford if she knew the man; she  

did not know whether she knew him or not, but thought he was one who had been at  

Tyburn. That examinant and Mary Ashford stayed at the stile a quarter of an hour  

afterwards; they then went straight up to Mr Freeman's, again crossed the road, and  

went on towards Erdington till he came to a grass field on the right hand side of the  

road, within about one hundred yards of Mr Greensall's, in Erdington. Mary Ashford  

walked on, and examinant never saw her after; she was nearly opposite to Mr  

Greensall's. Whilst he was in the field, he saw a man cross the road for James's; but he  

did not know who he was. He then went on for Erdington work-house, to see if he  

could see Mary Ashford. He stopped upon the green about five minutes to wait for  

her; it was then four o'clock, or ten minutes past four o'clock. Examinant went by  

Shipley's on his road home, and afterwards by John Holden's, where he saw a man  

and woman with some milk cows, and a young man driving some cows out of a field,  

who he thought to be Holden's son. He then went towards Mr Twamley's mill, where  

he saw Mr Rotton's keeper taking the rubbish out of the nets at the flood-gates. He  

asked the man what o'clock it was, he answered it was near five o'clock. He knew the  

keeper. Twamley's mill is above a mile and a quarter from his father's house, with  

whom he lives. The first person he saw was Edward Leek, a servant of his father, and  

a boy;-that his mother was up. He took off a black coat he had on, and put on the one  

he now wears, which hung up in the kitchen, and changed his hat, and left them both  

in the house. He did not change his shoes or stockings, though his shoes were rather  

wet from having walked across the meadows. That examinant knew Mary Ashford  

when she lived at the Swan, at Erdington, but not particularly intimate with her. That  

he had not seen Mary Ashford for a considerable time before he met her at Tyburn. 

Examinant had been drinking the whole evening, but much as to be intoxicated. 

THE TRIAL 

On the 8th of August 1817, Abraham Thornton was capitally indicted at the  

Warwick Assizes, for the wilful murder of Mary Ashford, and scarcely any trial upon  

record ever excited so universally, the attention of all ranks of people, as the present.  

By six o'clock in the morning, great numbers of persons had assembled before the  

gates of the County Hall, using every endeavour, interest, and entreaty, to gain  

admission; and by eight o'clock, the time fixed upon for the trial to begin, the press at  

the doors was inconceivably great, and it was with the utmost difficulty that way  

could be made by the javelin-men, for the entrance of the witnesses and other persons  

who were subpoened, either for the prosecution, or defence of the prisoner. It was past  

nine o'clock before the doors were thrown open to admit the people, who pressed for  

admittance into the Hall, indiscriminately. The court by this time, was crowded in all  

parts to excess. The judge entered the court a few minutes past eight o'clock, when Mr  

Hilditch, clerk of the arraigns, proceeded to call over the names from the panel, for  

the purpose of forming the jury. The jurors having answered to their names, and  

entered the box, the prisoner, who had been placed at the bar in the intermediate time,  

was told by the officer of the court, that those were the good men who were to try him  

for his life or death, and that if he had any objection to any of them, he must make his  

objection, as their names were called over, before they were sworn. The jurors were  

then sworn, one only being challenged by the prisoner, and the trial began. 

The officer of the court then read over the indictment, which consisted of two  

counts. The first charged the prisoner, Abraham Thornton, with having, on the 27th of  

May last, in the royal town, manor, and lordship of Sutton Coldfield, in the county of  

Warwick, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved by the  

instigation of the devil, wilfully murdered Mary Ashford, by throwing her into a pit of  

water. 

He was then asked by the officer, Abraham Thornton, 

are you guilty of this murder, or not guilty?-To which he replied, Not Guilty. 

Officer.-God send you a good deliverance. 

The officer then read over the second count, charging the prisoner with  

having, on the morning aforesaid, committed a rape upon the body of the said Mary  

Ashford, and was again addressed by the officer, Prisoner, are you guilty of this rape  

and felony, or not guilty?-To which he replied as before, Not Guilty. 

Officer.-God send you a good deliverance. 

The counsel were, for the Crown, Mr Clarke, Mr serjeant Copley, and Mr  

Perkins; for the Prisoner, Mr Reader, and Mr Reynolds. 

The junior counsel (Mr Perkins), briefly stated to the jury and the court, the  

nature of the charges against the prisoner. 

Mr Clark; leading counsel for the prosecution, then addressed the jury: 

'Gentlemen of the Jury-I am of counsel for the prosecution: and by the  

indictment, which has just now been read to you by the officer of the court, the  

prisoner is charged-with one of the highest offences that human nature is capable of  

committing, nothing less than of shedding the blood of a fellow-creature! 

'I need not enlarge upon this subject. The crime itself is incapable of  

aggravation. It is my painful province, however, to lay before you a statement of the  

evidence which will be produced in support of that charge; and, as it is not my duty,  

so neither is it my inclination, to exaggerate upon this occasion; but public justice  

requires that the whole proof should be brought fully and fairly before you. I will  

forbear commenting upon the enormity of this barbarous transaction, but shortly state  

to you the facts that will be produced in evidence. 

'The deceased was a young woman of engaging manners,-handsome in her  

person,-and of unblemished character. She was well known in that part of the  

country,-that is, at Erdington, and in the neighbourhood, near to which this barbarous  

crime was perpetrated; but the precise place, and all the horrid circumstances  

attending it, you will learn from the respective witnesses. The deceased was the  

daughter of poor parents,-of poor but very honest parents,-but she had lately been at  

her uncle's, who is a farmer at Langley. Under the roof of this relation, she was still  

living, when she met with a violent death,-a death, under such distressing  

circumstances, that the mind shrinks, appalled, at the melancholy recital. For, it will  

be proved to you, by a most respectable medical gentleman, who examined the body  

of the deceased, that, recently before she had been thrown into the pit, she had been  

treated with brutal violence. 

'Gentlemen,-It will also be proved to you, that the deceased, Mary Ashford, on  

the evening of the 26th of May, the night preceding the murder, went, in company  

with her friend and acquaintance, a young woman of the name of Hannah Cox, to a  

dance at a public-house, in the neighbourhood of Castle Bromwich, called Tyburn  

House. The prisoner was one of the company-and it was at this house, and at this  

time, I believe, that the deceased first saw, or at least knew, the prisoner at the bar.  

The prisoner, it seems, when the deceased first entered the house, inquired her name,  

and who she was. On being told by one of the company, that it was old Ashford's  

daughter, he replied-'I have been connected with her sister, and I will with her, or I'll  

die by it.' The prisoner after this, went into the dancing-room-introduced himself into  

her company, and, as I am informed, went down a dance or two with her. About  

twelve o'clock, the deceased and the prisoner left the house together. The deceased, it  

appeared, left for the purpose of returning home. Hannah Cox, the young woman who  

accompanied the deceased to Tyburn-house, saw them together after they had left the  

house; and went part of the way home with them. Another witness that will be called,  

will tell you, that he also saw them together at the same time. From this time, till three  

o'clock, we have no account of them. At three o'clock, a man, another of our  

witnesses, saw them sitting on a stile, in the road between Tyburn-house and a friend's  

of the deceased, living at Erdington, where the deceased had changed her clothes,  

previous to her going to the dance on the evening before. This was about three o'clock  

in the morning of the 27th. After this we hear no more of the deceased till about four  

o'clock; she then called at her friend's house, Mrs. Butler's, at Erdington-green, to  

change her dress, and put on the clothes she had worn on the preceding day. The  

deceased called up Hannah Cox, who let her in; and, at this time, this witness will tell  

you, she was in good spirits, and appeared as cheerful as usual. 

'Now, gentlemen, it will be shewn, that the deceased left this house between  

four and five in the morning of the 27th, and between that time and the time when the  

body was found in the pit, or rather, the clothes were seen, which led one of the  

witnesses to suppose, that some person had been drowned in the pit, which was about  

half past six, in the morning, the horrid crime must have been perpetrated. Other  

witnesses will describe to you the appearance of a fallow-field, which had been  

recently harrowed. In this field were plainly traced the footsteps of a man and a  

woman. The footsteps led from a path in this field, towards Langley, which, I before  

observed to you, was the place where the uncle of the deceased resided, and where she  

was going when she left Mrs. Butler's. It will likewise be shewn to you, that the  

deceased was seen, by several persons, on her way towards this place. It will be stated  

too, that these foot-marks had been made by two persons who had been both walking  

and running; and as if two persons had been struggling together. In following the  

traces of these footsteps, they led to a spot where there was an impression of a human  

figure extended on the ground. In the middle of this impression there was-a quantity  

of blood,-at the bottom of the figure there was a still larger quantity of blood, and in  

the same place were seen the marks of a man's knees and toes. From that spot the  

blood was distinctly traced for a considerable space on the grass, by the side of the  

pathway towards the pit where the body was found; but along with this blood no  

footstep was traced. There was dew upon the grass, consequently, had any foot gone  

along there, the dew would have been brushed away. It appeared plainly as if a man  

had walked along the foot-way carrying a body, from the extremity of which the  

blood dropped upon the grass. At the edge of the pit, her shoes, bonnet, and bundle,  

were found, but only one footstep could be seen there, and that was a man's. It was  

deeply impressed, and seemed to be that of a man who thrust one foot forward to  

heave the body he had in his arms into the pit. 

'When her body was examined, there were marks of laceration upon it, and  

both her arms had the visible marks of hands, as if they had been pressed with  

violence to the ground: in her stomach some duck-weeds were found, which proved  

she breathed after she had been thrown into the water, but the small quantity merely  

shews that she had not previously been quite dead. The evidence of a skilful surgeon  

will shew that, down to this violence, she had been a virgin. 

'It is, therefore, natural to suppose, that the violent agitation and outrageous  

injury of such an assault, stunned and deprived her of animation for a moment:-that,  

in this state she was thrown in the water; and that the animation restored to her for a  

moment, was instantly cut off by drowning. 

'Hitherto, however, the prisoner is not connected with the act; but you will not  

only find him with her at three o'clock, you will also find, by his own admission, that  

he was with her at four. You will find the marks of the man's shoes in the running and  

struggling correspond exactly to his. You will find by his own admission, that he was  

intimate with her, and this admission made, not before the magistrate, nor until the  

evident proofs were discovered on his clothes; her clothes too, afford most powerful  

evidence as to that fact. 

'At her friend Cox's, at four o'clock in the morning, she put off her dancing  

dress, and put on the dress in which she had gone to Birmingham the day before. The  

clothes she put on there, and which she had on at the time of her death, were all over  

bloody and covered with dirt. The surgeon will tell you that the coagulated blood  

could not have proceeded except from violence. Therefore, the case appears to have  

been, that the prisoner had paid her the greatest attention during the night-shewn,  

perhaps, those attentions which she might naturally have been pleased with, and  

particularly from one her superior in life; but that, afterwards, he waited for her on her  

return from Erdington, and first forcibly violated her, and then threw her apparently  

lifeless body into the pit. 

'It will be attempted to shew you, that he returned home, and that some other  

person must have met her, and brought her to the dismal end she met with: But,  

gentlemen, as footsteps were traced through the harrowed field to a stile leading to his  

father's by the very course he took, and he admits an intimacy with her, that is a  

circumstance of the utmost importance, and you will bear in your mind that he did not  

admit this until proofs were adduced against him. 

'Gentlemen, the evidence will be laid before you.-From it you will form your  

judgment, and I desire you to lay out of view every thing that I may have said, unless  

it shall be confirmed by the learned judge who presides at this trial.' 

The learned counsel having sat down, the other counsel for the prosecution  

proceeded to examine evidence to substantiate the charge against the prisoner. 

HANNAH COX (Examined by Serjeant Copley) 

I lived in the service of Mr Machell, at Erdington, in the month of May last,  

and slept at my mother's, Mary Butler's, on the opposite side the way, facing my  

master's house. Mary Ashford came to my master's house, on Monday, the 26th of  

May last, about ten o'clock in the morning. She had a bundle with her, and said she  

was going to Birmingham market. She had on a pink cotton frock or gown, a straw  

bonnet, with straw-coloured ribbons, a scarlet spencer, half-boots, and black  

stockings. She had a bundle with her, containing a clean frock, a white spencer, and a  

pair of white stockings. I went with her to Mrs. Butler's, to leave her bundle. She then  

went to Birmingham, and was to come back as soon as she could, as she was going  

with me to Daniel Clarke's, at Tyburn-house, to a dance. Clarke's is a public-house,  

about two or three miles from Erdington, on the turnpike-road. About six o'clock, she  

called upon me at Mr Machell's, and we went over to Mrs. Butler's together, where  

she changed her dress, and put on the clothes before described, with a pair of new  

shoes which I had fetched for her from a shoemaker's at Erdington; she left her other  

clothes at Mrs. Butler's, and we set out to the dance between seven and eight o'clock.  

The deceased was about twenty years of age. We went into the dancing-room, and  

staid there about a quarter of an hour; both the deceased and the prisoner were in the  

dancing-room. I left the public-house between eleven and twelve o'clock. The  

deceased did not go out of the house with me. I spoke to her, and she told me she  

would not be long; and I went out and waited for her on the bridge, which is about  

thirty yards from the house. While I was on the bridge, Benjamin Carter came out of  

the house to me, and I afterwards sent him for Mary, and then she and Abraham  

Thornton came to us. I waited on the bridge from the time I first went there, till the  

prisoner and the deceased came to me, about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and  

then we all went towards Erdington; that is, the deceased, the prisoner, Benjamin  

Carter, and myself. Thornton and Mary Ashford went on first. Carter stopped talking  

with me for about ten minutes; and then I followed them, leaving Carter behind, but  

he overtook me in nine or ten minutes after; he only stopped about two minutes, and  

then went back to the house. After Carter left me, I went on after Mary Ashford and  

Thornton, and when I overtook them, walked with them till we came between Mr  

Reeves's and the Old-Cuckoo, which is a little before you come to the road that leads  

off to Erdington; I did not go with them to where the road separates, but very near to  

it. I was before the prisoner and the deceased at this time, and took the road to the left  

of a house called Loar's; I then went home to my mother's, and went to bed. I know  

the person who keeps the Old-Cuckoo; his name is Potter. In the morning, Mary  

Ashford came to my mother's house and called me up, and I got up and let her in; I  

looked at the clock, and found it wanted twenty minutes to five; my mother's clock,  

however, by the other clocks in the neighbourhood, was not right; it was too fast. At  

this time the deceased was in the same dress as she had on the over night; I noticed it  

particularly, and am sure it was the very same she bad on the night before. I did not  

perceive any agitation or confusion in the person of the deceased; neither her person  

nor her dress were disordered that I saw; on the contrary she appeared very calm and  

in very good spirits. She did not go into another room to change her dress, but  

remained in the house all the time, and I stayed with her. When she had changed her  

dress, she tied up the clothes she took off, in a bundle along with some market things;  

she wrapped the boots in a handkerchief, and kept on her shoes. The market things  

were some sugar and other things, which she brought from Birmingham-market, the  

day before. She might have been altogether in the house a quarter of an hour, but I  

cannot exactly say: she then went away, and I saw no more of her. When she changed  

her clothes, she did not sit down on a chair, but stood up, and stood also while she  

pulled off her stockings. She did nothing more in the house than change her dress, but  

I did not observe that her frock was stained, nor did she tell me that she had any  

complaint upon her. The road leading to the deceased's uncle's, went along Bell-lane. 

(Cross-examined by Mr READER, Counsel for the Prisoner) 

I was an acquaintance of the deceased; she and I were very intimate; she  

appeared in perfect health, when she came to call me up. I think she was about twenty  

years old. I know the father of the deceased, he is a gardener at Erdington, near the  

place where I live; the deceased's grandfather lives near Bell-lane, about two or three  

miles off; the place where I parted with the prisoner and the deceased, is about two or  

three miles from my own home. I can't say exactly how far the deceased's  

grandfather's is from the pit where the body was found, it may be about three or four  

hundred yards. When the deceased came and called me up in the morning, she told me  

she had slept at her grandfather's; her grandfather's is about half a mile from Potter's.  

When she had called me up, I asked her how long Mr Thornton stopped, and she said  

a good bit; I asked her what had become of him, and she said he was gone home.  

When she left me in the morning, she said she was going to her grandfather's. 

BENJAMIN CARTER(Examined by Mr PERKINS, Counsel for the Crown) 

My name is BENJAMIN CARTER, I am a farmer, and live with my father at  

Erdington. On Monday night, the 26th of May, I was in the room where the dancing  

was, at Tyburn house, and saw Mary Ashford and the prisoner there, dancing together.  

I left the house between eleven and twelve o'clock, and then went to the bridge, to  

Hannah Cox; I stayed with her there about a quarter of an hour, and after that Hannah  

Cox desired me to go back to the house to see for the deceased, Mary Ashford, and I  

went back to see for her. When I went into the room where the dancing was, I saw  

Thornton, the prisoner, dancing with the deceased; I spoke to Mary Ashford, and then  

I went back to the bridge to Hannah Cox, and in about a quarter of an hour, Mary  

Ashford and Thornton came to us, at the bridge; I went with them a little way towards  

home, and then tuned back towards Tyburn-house. I afterwards, a second time,  

overtook them all between Mrs. Reeves's and Mr Potter's-Mary Ashford the deceased,  

the prisoner Thornton, and Hannah Cox. Soon after that, I parted with Hannah Cox,  

and she turned off another road to go home; and I went on with the prisoner and the  

deceased to the turn of the road, and then went home, and saw no more of them that  

night. 

JOHN UMPAGE (Examined by Mr CLARKE, Counsel for the Crown) 

I live at Witton, near Erdington, in the parish of Aston. I remember being at  

Mr Reynolds's house, at Penn's, on Tuesday morning, the 27th of May last; I was in  

the lower part of the house. While I was there, I heard somebody talking in the road,  

as I sat in the house. When I first heard the talking, it was a little after two o'clock in  

the morning, and I heard the talking until a few minutes before I started home, about a  

quarter before three. When I got out of doors to go home, I did not see anybody  

immediately on going out, but when I got up the foredrove, I saw a woman at the stile  

at the bottom of the foredrove; the foredrove leads into Bell-lane, and Bell-lane, that  

way, leads towards Erdington. When I got up to the stile, I discovered who the  

persons were, the man was the prisoner, whom I had known before; I bid him Good  

morning, and be said Good morning. I did not know who the woman was, she held her  

hbead down, so that I could not see it; I left them sitting against the stile. 

Cross-examined by Mr REYNOLDS 

I know the pit where the body was found afterwards, it is about 100 yards  

from Reynolds's house; there is another house in the neighbourhood, nearly adjoining  

the close. Reynolds's family consists of Thomas Reynolds and his daughter. When I  

was there at two o'clock, I was talking with Reynolds's daughter; I went out of the  

house about a quarter before three, and left Thomas Reynolds's daughter up. I was  

within about a hundred yards of the prisoner and the deceased before I saw them; the  

girl was standing, and he was leaning against the stile. She evidently appeared as  

though she would not be known, and she held her had down.  

THOMAS ASPREY, Examined by SERJEANT COPLEY 

I live at Erdington, I remember on the morning of the 27th of May last, being  

on the road near Erdington; I was going to Great Barr; I crossed Bell-lane, leaving  

Erdington on the left, and Bell-lane on the right; I saw Mary Ashford in Bell-lane  

against the horse-pit; she was going towards Erdington; she was walking very fast; it  

was about half after three o'clock; she was alone, and I looked up Bell-lane in the  

direction from which she was coming, and saw no other person, either there or about  

there. 

Cross-examined by Mr READER 

The deceased was going in a direction towards Mrs. Butler's house, which is  

about a quarter of a mile from the spot where I saw her. 

JOHN KESTERTON Examined by Mr PERKINS 

I live at Erdington with Thomas Greensall, a farmer; on Tuesday, the 27th of  

May last, I was up soon after two o'clock. I was at the stable to fettle the horses; the  

stable looks towards the road that leads into the village of Erdington. I put the horses  

to the waggon at four o'clock, and then took them to the pit by the side of the road in  

Bell-lane to water. When the horses had drank, I turned them round, and went straight  

off for Birmingham, along the road through the village of Erdington. I know the house  

of Mrs. Butler, and passed it, and when I got a little way past, I turned to look back,  

and saw Mary Ashford coming from out of the widow Butler's entry. I knew her, and  

smacked my whip, and she turned and looked towards me; this was a quarter past  

four; when she came out of the entry, she went up Bell-lane, the road that leads for  

Freeman's and Penn's; she seemed to be going in a hurry. I hardly knew the prisoner  

Thornton at that time by sight, but I had seen him; I saw no person like him that  

morning in the road; I saw no person but her, although the road is very broad, and I  

could see for some distance. 

Cross-examined by Mr READER 

I knew the deceased very well, and could not therefore be mistaken in her  

person. I saw her about a quarter past four, coming out of the entry, and saw nobody  

else. 

JOSEPH DAWSON, Examined by Mr CLARKE 

I saw Mary Ashford on the morning of the 27th of May, about a quarter past  

four, as near as I can guess. She asked me how I did, and passed on, and I asked her  

how she did, and passed on. I recollect she bad on at that time, a straw bonnet and  

scarlet spencer, and had a bundle in her hand. I know where Mrs. Butler's house is, in  

Erdington, and I also know Bell-lane. It was between Bell-lane and Mrs. Butler's  

house that I saw her, we were dose together in the road between Butler's house and  

Bell-lane near Henry Holmes's. When she parted from me she was going towards  

Bell-lane, and was walking very fast. I did not see any man about at that time. 

Cross-examined by Mr READER 

The way she was going would be the way either to her grandfather's or her  

uncle's, where she lived. 

GEORGE JACKSON, Examined by Mr PERKINS 

I came out of Birmingham on Tuesday morning, the 27th of May. It was five  

o'clock when I was at the top of Moor-street, in Birmingham. I was going beyond  

Penn's Mills, betwixt Newhall-fields and Sutton, to work. From Birmingham I came  

to the workhouse at Erdington, and then along the road for Penn's Mills. I do not  

know the name of the road which turns by The workhouse. I turned out of the road  

into the foredrove that leads for Penn's, out of Bell-lane, and going along that foot- 

road, I came to a pit. When I came near to the pit, I observed a bonnet, a pair of shoes,  

and a bundle. They were close by the top of the slope, that leads down into the pit. I  

looked at them; I saw one of the shoes all blood; then I went towards Penn's mill to  

fetch a person to come and look at them; I brought a man from the first house, he was  

coming out of his own door-place, and we went to the pit; his name is Lavell. I then  

told him to stand by these things, while I fetched some more hands from Penn's mills,  

as nobody should meddle with them. Going down from the pit along the foot-path, I  

saw some blood about thirty yards from the pit; it might be about a couple of yards  

round, in a triangle. I went a little farther, and saw a lake of blood by the side of a  

bush. I saw more some to the left, on some grass; then I went forward to the works at  

Penn's Mills, to let them know what had happened. I got assistance, and sent Lavell to  

the pit, and went myself to Penn's Mills to let them know, and then I came back again.  

The persons I had sent there were with Lavell, when I returned. I did not stop till the  

body was found, but went to my work. 

(Cross-examined by Mr REYNOLDS) 

The distance from Birmingham to this pit might be about five miles or five  

miles and a half, as near as I can guess. It is a public road the whole way. When I got  

to the pit, it was about half past six. The pit is close to the foot-path; the foot-path is  

close to the carriage-road, separated by a hedge. The pit is close to a stile, and the  

field in which the pit is, was a grass field. The field immediately before it, coming in  

the way I did, is a ploughed field, through which there is a public footpath. In order to  

get from this ploughed-field into the field where the pit is, it is necessary to get over a  

stile. The ploughed field is separated from the field in which the pit is, by a high  

hedge, and the only communication is by this stile. The pit where I saw the bundle, is  

rather steep than otherwise. Penn's Mills are about half a mile off. Mr Webster has  

there a considerable manufactory, but I did not see any of the men at work, but several  

about.  

Re-examined by Mr PERKINS 

From the place where the bundle and shoes were, to the pit, might be about  

four yards; that is, from the top of the slope to the water. I cannot tell what time it was  

when I got to Mr Webster's works. It was soon after I went to Lavell's. It might be half  

an hour or three quarters after I first saw the bundle, till I got to Mr Webster's works.  

The bundle and shoes were about a foot from the top of the slope. 

WILLIAM LAVELL, Examined by Mr CLARKE 

I am a workman at Penn's Mills. I remember on Tuesday, the 27th of May,  

seeing George Jackson. In consequence of what I heard from him, I went up to the pit.  

I know the harrowed-field through which the foot-path from Erdington to Mill-lane  

goes. It is adjoining the field where the pit is. I also know the foot-path, and went  

along it to see if I could discover any footsteps. In going along the field, the first steps  

I discovered were a man's, going from the pit towards Erdington. Those footsteps  

were going across the ploughed field to the right hand, as I was going towards  

Erdington. There is a dry pit at the corner of the field to the right, and those man's  

footsteps were coming up towards that dry pit. I went higher up that path towards  

Erdington, and, at about eight yards 

distance, I discovered a woman's footsteps, which were going the same way to my  

right. I traced the steps of the man, and the steps of the woman, from these two spots,  

but these two footsteps never met together at any time. They came so far together as  

to run near each other, when about fifteen yards nearer the hedge. By the stride and  

sinking into the ground of the footsteps, I could tell the parties were running. I traced  

them to the right-hand side of the close up to the far corner where the dry pit is,  

running together. When I got to that corner, I observed them dodging backwards and  

forwards. I could not tell whether they appeared to be still running; they seemed  

shorter, as though they had been dodging about. I traced the steps on the grass at the  

corner of the piece to that dry pit, on the right-hand side. When they got upon the  

grass, I could tell they went towards the water-pit in the harrowed-field. In tracing  

them up to that pit, I traced them on the harrowed-ground. Here they appeared to be  

walking, sometimes the woman's feet went on the edge of the grass, and sometimes on  

the edge of the field, sometimes on the hard earth, and sometimes on the grass. The  

man's feet generally kept the grass, but there was one place where they were both off  

together. I could see they had been on the grass. I traced those footsteps that way  

down to the first pit, the water-pit in the harrowed-field. I could not trace them  

together any farther, but we traced the man's foot till it came to the hard road. The  

woman's feet were on the grass, on the left of the man's, which prevented us from  

tracing them. I could not trace them any further towards the second pit, because the  

road beyond was hard.  

I traced other footsteps in a contrary way, going from the pit in the harrowed  

field; they began down at the hard road, on the footpath they were the footsteps of a  

man; the man whose footsteps they were, appeared to be running; that was on the  

harrowed ground. There were no other footsteps, than those of a man going that way,  

at that time. I traced those steps about three parts up the piece, it might be rather  

better, towards the dry pit; and having traced them so far, I discovered the footing  

turned down to the left; as I was pursuing the track, after they turned to the left, I  

traced them down to the gate at the farther corner, crossing the footpath, which they  

crossed at the middle of the piece, or near upon it. After the footsteps bad turned, they  

appeared to be the footsteps of a man running, and they went then quite to the corner;  

there were no other tracks than a man's, and I could trace them no further than the  

gate. On the other side of the gate, there was a green-sward clover; that gate led into  

some meadows, towards Pipe-hall. I know Castle Bromwich, and that road would  

carry one to Castle Bromwich, by the- great Chester-road.. From Penn's-mill lane, the  

regular road to 

Castle Bromwich, from the corner of the pit, would have been straight across the  

piece up the foot road, and so into Bell-lane. By the way which I traced those steps to  

the corner of the field, a man would get sooner to Castle Bromwich, than going the  

regular way; and from that gate where I lost the footsteps, there was no regular road to  

Castle Bromwich; but to go that way, he must cross the fields upon trespass, but that  

would make a shorter cut. Joseph Bird and myself afterwards went to this field, to try  

the footsteps by Abraham Thornton's shoes, which Joseph Bird took with him. At that  

time, there was no woman's shoe taken; the shoes were right and left sboes, and those  

footsteps of the man appeared to be made with the right and left shoes, and appeared  

to be the footsteps of the same man. When Bird and I had the shoes with us, we tried  

those shoes on about a dozen of those footsteps. The shoes fitted those footsteps all  

exactly. We compared them with the foot steps on both sides of the way and have no  

doubt at all, that these footsteps were made with those shoes. We also compared them  

with those footsteps that turned off the road, about eight yards from where the  

footsteps of the woman turned off, and they fitted there. We then compared them with  

those parts where the man and woman appeared to be running together, and there also  

they fitted. We compared them where they dodged, and they agreed in all those parts.  

There were some of the footsteps which I had covered with boards at the corner, up by  

the dry pit. Those shoes of Thornton's were nailed with a particular nail, a sparrow- 

bill; but at the toe of the right shoe, there are not any on one side, and there were  

marks of these sparrow-nails on those footsteps which I had covered up. There was  

one step trod on a short stick which throwed the foot up, and there were the marks of  

two nails. Bird and I went after that, with Mary Ashford's shoe to this place, and  

compared that shoe with the woman's steps that we had traced; we compared it with  

those that turned to the right, with the steps where the man and woman appeared to be  

running, with the woman's steps where the doubling was, with those where the  

woman was sometimes on the grass and sometimes off, in fact in every place, and  

with all those footsteps it so completely corresponded, as to leave no doubt in my  

mind, that the woman's steps all along were made by those shoes. I know the slope of  

the pit where the body was found, and saw one footstep near the edge of the slope,  

which appeared to be a man's. The direction of that step, appeared to be the left foot  

sideways, and it inclined towards the slope, but I forgot to compare the shoe with that.  

The bundle was by the side of the pit, and beside the bundle, there was a pair of shoes  

and a bonnet; those shoes were the shoes which I compared with the footsteps. I saw  

some blood about forty yards from that pit, below the gate; and there was also blood  

about fourteen yards up, nearer the pit; I traced that train of blood for fourteen yards;  

it run straight up towards the pit, across the path, and then about a foot from the path  

on the clover; where I saw it on the clover, there were no footsteps. Those drops on  

the clover, were about foot from the footway. The dew was on the clover. The blood  

on the clover, came in drops at last, but it was a regular run where it first came on the  

clover;-not all the way. 

JOSEPH BIRD then confirmed Lavell's evidence in every particular.  

JAMES SIMMONS 

I am a labourer, and work at Penn's-mills. I went to the pit where the body was  

found, on the morning of the 27th of May, about seven o'clock; afterwards went home  

and fetched a rake and some long reins, and came back and dragged for the body; and  

after throwing the rake into the water three or four times, we dragged out the body of  

Mary Ashford; when it was taken out of the pit, there was a little mud, and some old  

oak leaves about the face. 

JOSEPH WEBSTER, Esq. 

I live at Penn's-mills; the mills belong to me. On the morning of the 27th of  

May, I was informed that a woman was drowned in a pit, not far from my house, and  

in consequence of receiving that information, I went immediately to the pit; as soon as  

I got there, the body was taken out of the water; this was about eight o'clock. I then  

ordered the body to be taken to Lavell's house; and sent the bundle, the bonnet, and  

the shoes, with it. I observed, on a spot about forty yards from the pit, a considerable  

quantity of blood; it lay in a round space, and was as large as I could cover with my  

extended hand. There was the impression of a human figure on the grass, on the spot  

where the blood was. The shoes I had sent with the body, were stained with blood. It  

appeared that the arms and legs had been extended quite out. The arms had been  

stretched out their full length. A small quantity of blood lay in the centre of the figure;  

and a larger quantity of blood lay at the feet. I perceived what appeared to be the  

marks of the toes of a man's large shoes, at the bottom of the figure, on the same  

place. The largest quantity of blood at the feet of the figure, was much coagulated. I  

traced the blood for ten yards up by the side of the path, towards the pit. At the stile, a  

little below this spot, and further from the pit, in the continuance of the footpath,  

marks appeared as if one or more persons had sat down. These marks were on the  

other side the stile, in the next field, and in a contrary direction from the harrowed- 

field. I then went home to dress, and returned again in about an hour. When I came  

back, I went into the harrowed-field, and there I perceived the traces of a man's and  

woman's foot; they were pointed out to me by Bird; as I had previously ordered my  

servants to look over that field. On seeing these footsteps, I sent for the shoes I had  

before sent with the body to Lavell's; and on comparing those marks with the shoes,  

they exactly corresponded. There was a spot of blood on the inside of one of the  

shoes; and on the outside of the same shoe, on the inside of the foot, there was much  

blood. 

[The shoes were called for, and the witness pointed out the spots to the jury,  

which he had alluded to in his evidence. The shoe, when it had been examined by the  

jury, was handed up to the judge, who also examined it very minutely, and then  

addressing himself to the witness, asked, Mr Webster, Is it a spot on the inside of the  

shoe that you have described? to which the witness replied, Yes, my lord; the marks at  

that time, were plain to be seen; they are not so plain now. 

The spot of blood on the inside of the shoe was quite plain, when perceived on  

this occasion; but those on the leather, on the outside, could scarcely be perceived.] 

Examination of Mr WEBSTER continued 

After comparing the shoes with the footmarks in the harrowed-field, I went to  

Lavell's, to examine the body. The spencer had been taken off; I observed, on each  

arm, what appeared to me to be marks from the grasp of a man's hand. I did not make  

observations of anything more about the body at that time.  

I know Mrs. Butler's; I set my watch with Mr Crompton's and then went the  

same morning, to Mrs. Butler's house, at Erdington, to examine her clock. My watch,  

I believe to be very accurate, and on comparing them, her clock was forty-one  

minutes faster than my watch; I saw the clothes on the body of the deceased; they  

were a red spencer, a coloured gown, and black worsted stockings; I observed much  

blood on the seat of the gown; it was in a very dirty state; there was blood also on  

other parts of the gown; the clothes I have spoken of are the same that were on the  

body, when it was taken out of the pit; Lavell's wife took care of them; I had them in  

my possession till I delivered them to Dale, the officer, after the prisoner had been  

examined by Mr Bedford.  

Cross-examined 

Examined Mrs. Butler's clock, very accurately; it was forty-one minutes too  

fast by my watch. My watch goes by Birmingham time; by the church clocks. 

FANNY LAVELL 

I an the wife of William Lavell, a former witness; I remember on the 27th of  

May last, the body of Mary Ashford being brought to my house; I received a bundle  

of clothes at that time, they were sent to me by Mr Webster, a bonnet and a pair of  

shoes was also delivered to me; I took those things to Mr Webster, the next day; I  

undressed the body of the deceased; part of her clothes I untied, and the other part I  

tore off; I found her clothes in a very bad state; the gown was stained very much  

behind; it was very dirty; blood and dirt; the shift had a rent up one side, the length of  

my hand; I did not observe any blood on the stockings.  

THOMAS DALE, one of the assistants to the police, at Birmingham, produced  

the bundle which he had received from Mr Webster, It contained the clothes worn by  

the unfortunate female, at the time of her death. The pink gown was much stained  

with blood, and dirty; the water had caused the blood to spread over the seat of the  

garment. The white petticoat presented a similar appearance. In the chemise, there  

was a rent at the bottom, about six inches in length, which was discoloured. The  

deceased had no flannel petticoat on. On the black worsted stockings a spot or two  

could be perceived, but they were so faint, that no one could determine what had been  

the cause of them. 

The clothes that the deceased had taken off at Mrs. Butler's, and fled up in a  

bundle, found by Jackson, at the edge of the pit, and which she wore at the dance,  

were also shewn to the jury and to the court. 

MARY SMITH 

I live at Penn's Mills; I examined the body of Mary Ashford, on the morning  

of the 27th of May last, the morning it was taken out of the pit; the body when I  

examined it was at William Lavell's house; it was about half past ten o'clock in the  

morning; the clothes had been taken off before I got there. 

The witness here went into a particular description of the appearances of the  

body on her examination, but as the evidence so given was necessarily of a very  

peculiar description, we are under the necessity of omitting the details, and confine  

ourselves to merely stating that the testimony of the witness strongly confirmed the  

alleged brutal violation of the person of the deceased.  

On each arm, just above the elbow, there was a black mark, which appeared to  

me to have been made by the grasp of fingers. 

WILLIAM BEDFORD, ESQ. 

I am a magistrate for the county; I went to Tyburn-house on the 27th of May  

last, and took the deposition of the prisoner; it was read over to him, and then signed  

by the prisoner in my presence. 

The deposition of the prisoner, was here produced, and read by the officer. 

This deposition was taken about one o'clock on the 27th of May, at the house  

of Daniel Clarke. 

THOMAS DALE 

I am one of the assistant constables of Birmingham; I was applied to go to  

Tyburn-house, on the morning of the 27th of May last and went there, in consequence  

of that application; it was about ten o'clock when I got there; I took the prisoner into  

custody soon after; the landlord, Daniel Clarke, and I believe, some others, were in  

the room with the prisoner when I first went in; I saw Mr Bedford, the magistrate  

there about eleven o'clock, but before he came I had taken the prisoner into custody; I  

had some conversation with him; we were all talking together for some time. I told  

him he was my prisoner; I searched the clothes, and the person of the prisoner; we  

went into a room upstairs, the prisoner, myself; William Benson, and Mr Sadler; I  

examined his small clothes, and his shirt, they were both very much stained; I did not  

observe anything, on any other part of his dress; I asked the prisoner, how his clothes  

came in that state; he said he had been concerned with the girl, by her own consent- 

but he knew nothing about the murder; the prisoner was afterwards examined by Mr  

Bedford, the magistrate; I was present at that examination. 

Cross-examined by Mr READER 

I had been with the prisoner an hour before Mr Bedford the magistrate came to  

Clarke's; he confessed to me that he had had a connexion with the deceased, I believe,  

before he was taken to be examined; I don't recollect that anybody was present at that  

time. 

Re-examined by SERJEANT COPLEY 

I am not quite sure whether the prisoner told me that he had had connexion  

with the deceased, before the magistrate came to Clarke's, but I am quite sure he said  

so, when we were searching him up stairs; Mr Sadler and William Benson were  

present, and heard him make that confession besides myself. 

JOHN COOKE 

I am a farmer, and live at Erdington; I was at the dance at Tyburn-house on the  

night of the 26th of May last, and saw the prisoner there that night; Mary Ashford, the  

deceased, was also there; I saw her come into the room; when she came in, I heard the  

prisoner ask Mr Cottrell, who she was; Cottrell said, it is old Ashford's daughter. On  

Cottrell telling the prisoner that the deceased was old Ashford's daughter, I heard the  

prisoner say, 'I know a sister of her's, and have 

been connected with her three times, and I will with her, or I'll die by it;' I'm quite  

sure I heard the prisoner say those very words; the words were not spoken to me, but  

to Cottrell, although I was near enough to them to hear distinctly what was said; I  

stood close to them; I don't think anyone else heard the prisoner speak those words to  

Cottrell; but I stood near enough to them both, to hear what was said distinctly. 

Cross-examined 

I don't think anybody else was near enough to hear this conversation pass  

between the prisoner and Cottrell but myself; I did not remonstrate with Thornton on  

his making use of this expression. I was not examined at the Coroner's inquest; I can't  

tell how it was, I never was asked to go before the Coroner. I was at the house at the  

time, and should have gone, if I had been called for. I have heard that Cottrell denied  

that he ever heard the prisoner say what I have stated, and when I heard that, I went to  

the house at the Inquest, he never denied it to me. 

Re-examined 

I was at Tyburn-house, when the Inquest was held on the deceased, but did not  

hear that Cottrell was ever examined before the magistrate, or that be was examined  

before the Coroner. I mentioned the conversation that I heard pass between the  

prisoner and him, in the dancing room, to Cottrell; there were several other persons  

present at the time, and Cottrell did not deny it then. 

DANIEL CLARKE 

I keep Tyburn-house, where the dance was held on the night of the 26th of  

May last. In consequence of hearing of the misfortune that had happened to the  

deceased, I went to Castle Bromwich in search of the prisoner. I had heard of the body  

being taken out of the water before I went to look for the prisoner. I met the prisoner  

at Castle Bromwich, in the turnpike road, near the chapel, on a pony. I said to him,  

what is become of the young woman that went away with you from my house last  

night, and he made no answer. I then said, she is murdered, and thrown into a pit, and  

in reply to that, he said, 'Murdered!' I said, 'Yes, murdered!' The prisoner said, 'I was  

with her till four o'clock this morning.' I then said to him, you must go along with me  

and clear yourself. He said I can soon do that. We rode then towards my house,  

Tyburn-house, which is about a mile from Castle Bromwich; I had no conversation  

with the prisoner as we went along about the murder. We talked about things we saw,  

as we passed along. Amongst other things we talked about farming. I didn't say  

anything more to the prisoner, nor he to me, about the murder. When we got home,  

the prisoner put his pony into the stable, and said he would walk over the grounds, the  

footway to Sutton. He went into the house, and had something to eat and drink; he did  

not say anything more about going to Sutton that I heard, but stopped at my house, till  

the constable came and took him into custody. 

Cross-examined 

The prisoner and myself did not converse about the murder as we went along  

the road; I did not allude to the murder at all, after what passed between us at first, nor  

he either. I do not think the prisoner had heard of the murder of the deceased before I  

told him; and on my telling him, he immediately said, 'Murdered! why, I was with her  

till four o'clock.' I think he appeared a little confused when I first told him of the  

murder. 

WILLIAM LAVELL 

Was shewn the half boots, which he said were the same that were taken out of  

the bundle, that was found by the side of the pit. The judge examined the black  

stockings which the deceased had on, when she was taken out of the water. He said  

they seemed perfectly clean, except a spot or two which he thought he could just  

perceive on one of them; they were handed to the jury, who also examined them. The  

prisoner's shoes were also produced, and were minutely examined by the court, and  

afterwards by the jury. 

GEORGE FREER 

I am a surgeon, residing at Birmingham; I remember being sent for to attend  

the Coroner's Inquest at Penn's Mills, on the 27th of May last; another medical  

gentleman, Mr Horton, surgeon, of Sutton Coldfield, was there at the time; I arrived  

about half past seven in the evening, and just took a cursory view of the body then. It  

was placed in a very small dark room; I ordered it to be removed into another room,  

which was larger, and more convenient for the examination. While they were  

removing the body, I went to examine the pit where the body was found, and observed  

a quantity of blood, lying in various places near to the pit. When I returned, the body  

was removed into another room, and had been undressed; and the blood bad been  

washed from the upper surface of it; between the thighs and the lower parts of the,  

legs was a good deal of blood; the parts of generation were lacerated, and a quantity  

of coagulated blood was about those parts; but, as it was then nearly dark, I deferred  

the opening of the body until another day. On Thursday morning. I proceeded to open  

the body, and examine it more minutely: there was coagulated blood about the parts of  

generation, and she had her menses upon her. I opened the stomach, and found in it a  

portion of duck-weed, and about half a pint of thin fluid, chiefly water. In my  

judgment she died from drowning. There were two lacerations of the parts of  

generation, quite fresh; I was perfectly convinced, that, until those lacerations, the  

deceased was a virgin. The menses do not produce such blood as that. I had no doubt  

but the blood in the fields came from the lacerations I saw; those lacerations were  

certainly produced by a foreign body passing through the vagina; and the natural  

supposition is, that they proceeded from the sexual intercourse. There was nothing in  

them that could have caused death; there might have been laceration, though the  

intercourse had taken place by consent. Menstruation, I should think, could not have  

come on from the act of coition. I think it came on in an unexpected moment; and the  

exercise of dancing was likely to have accelerated the menses; there was an unusual  

quantity of blood. The deceased was a strong well-made girl, about five feet four  

inches in height. 

The case for the prosecution here closed, and the learned judge addressed the  

prisoner, informing him that the period had now arrived for him to make his defence,  

and that the court and jury would listen with attention to anything be had to say. His  

counsel had done all they could for him in the cross-examination of the witnesses for  

the prosecution; they could not address the jury in his behalf. The prisoner declined  

saying anything in his defence, stating that he would leave every thing to his counsel,  

who accordingly proceeded to witnesses for 

THE DEFENCE 

WILLIAM JENNINGS 

I am a milkman, and live at Birmingham. I was at Mr John Holden's, near  

Erdington, on the morning of the 27th of May last; I buy milk of him, and go there  

every morning to fetch it. I saw the prisoner at the bar, that morning coming down the  

lane, leading from Erdington, to Mr Holden's house, as if he came from Erdington,  

about half past four o'clock, as near as I could judge, having no watch. I do not know  

Mrs. Butler's, or Greensall's, or the workhouse, at Erdington; neither do I know  

Shipley's house; I'm not acquainted with the country. Having no watch, my wife, who  

was with me, asked at Mr Holden's, of Jane Heaton, the servant, what o'clock it was;  

she looked at the clock and told her. Before she inquired, and after I saw the prisoner,  

we had milked a cow apiece in the yard, which might occupy us about ten minutes.  

The cows were not in the yard then, they were a field's breadth from the house. I think  

this time, in all, took up about ten minutes. When I first saw the prisoner, he was  

walking very leisurely along the road; my wife saw him as well as myself. 

Cross-examined 

I was standing in the lane, within about thirty yards of Mr Holden's house, on  

the great road, when I first saw Thornton; I had been standing there about five  

minutes. The prisoner was within twenty yards of us, coming down the lane, between  

the canal bridge and Mr Holden's house, when I first saw him. I can't tell whether he  

came down the towing-path of the canal, or down the lane from towards Erdington; I  

did not see him till he was within twenty yards of me. I had been standing there about  

five minutes before I saw him. 

MARTHA JENNINGS 

I am the wife of the last witness. I was with my husband at Mr Holden's on the  

morning of the 27th of May last. While there I saw the prisoner pass; he was coining  

gently along. It was about half past four o'clock, as I inquired what time of the  

morning it was soon afterwards, of Jane Heaton, Mr Holden's servant. Between the  

time I saw the prisoner, and the time we began to milk, we waited some time for  

young Mr Holden, who was gone to fetch up the cows into the yard; and we had each  

milked a cow apiece, before I asked Jane Heaton the time of the morning. I think it  

must have been a quarter of an hour at least. 

Cross-examined 

I was standing in the road near Mr Holden's house, when I first saw the  

prisoner, much nearer to the house than to the canal bridge. I had been in this position  

about five minutes. We were looking at a cow that was running at a great rate down  

the lane; when she had passed us, we turned round to look after her, and then we saw  

the prisoner. As our backs were towards the prisoner, he might have come along the  

towing-path without our seeing him. 

JANE HEATON 

I live at Mr Holden's. I got up about half past four on the morning of the  

morning of the 27th of May last. From the room of my window, I can see the lane that  

leads from Erdington to Castle Bromwich; it is just by my master's house. When I was  

at the window, I saw a man walking along the road that leads by my master's house,  

from Erdington to Castle Bromwich. I think Thornton is the man. After I came down  

stairs, I saw Jennings and his wife: they came to ask what o'clock it was, and I looked  

at my master's clock to tell them; it wanted seventeen minutes to five. This was about  

a quarter of an hour after I saw the man pass my master's house. The clock was not  

altered for some time after I looked at it. 

JOHN HOLDEN, Sen. 

The last witness, Jane Heaton, is my servant. I was at home on the morning of  

the 27th of May. I don't know whether my dock at that time, was with the  

Birmingham clocks. I remember Mr Twamley coming to my house, on the  

Wednesday morning, to examine my clock: it did not want any alteration. 

JOHN HOLDEN, Jun. 

I am the son of the last witness, and live with my father. The family consists of  

my father, my mother, who was ill in bed, myself, and Jane Heaton, the servant. I  

remember going to the grounds on the morning of the 27th of May last, to fetch the  

cows up for Jennings and his wife to milk, but I don't know what time they came. I  

know the prisoner, Thornton, by sight. That morning I had been to fetch the cows, and  

as I came back I met him about two hundred yards from my father's house. He was  

going towards Castle Bromwich. I saw him pass the house, but do not know what  

time it was; it was early.  

WILLIAM TWAMLEY 

I live at Newhall-mill, near Sutton Coldfield, three miles from Castle  

Bromwich. I took an active part in investigating the cause of Mary Ashford's death. I  

was the cause of the prisoner being taken up. Mr Webster and me agreed to ascertain  

the state of the clocks. I went to Mr Holden's, and Mr Webster went to Castle  

Bromwich. I found Mr Holden's clock exactly with my own watch, as to time. I went  

from thence to Birmingham; my watch was just right with St. Martin's church, and it  

wanted a minute and a half of the Tower clock, there. 

JOHN HAYDON 

I am game-keeper to Mr Rotton, of Castle Bromwich. On the morning of the  

27th of May last, I left my own house about ten minutes before five. I went to take up  

some nets which I had put down the night before, at the flood. As I passed Mr  

Zachariah Twamley's stables, at 

Bromwich, I heard Mr Rotton's stable clock strike five. It was about five minutes after  

that, before I saw the prisoner. He was coming towards Mr Twamley's mills, in the  

way from Erdington to Castle Bromwlch. I asked him where he had been. He said, to  

take a wench home. He stopped talking with me about ten minutes or a quarter of an  

hour; and then he went on towards Castle Bromwich, where he lived. From the spot  

where I first saw the prisoner, to Mr Holden's, is about half a mile, as near as I can  

guess. 

JOHN WOODCOCK 

I work at Mr Zachariah Twamley's mill: I am a miller. I saw a man talking  

with Haydon, Mr Rotton's game-keeper, at the flood-gates, on the morning of the 27th  

of May last, that I took to be the prisoner. From a calculation I have since made, it  

must have been about ten minutes past five. 

Cross-examined 

I know the prisoner very well; but I am not sure it was him that I saw with  

Haydon, at the flood-gates. I thought it was him. When I said that it was ten minutes  

past five o'clock by my calculation, I calculate thus: I went into the mill the first thing,  

and when I came out again, I heard Mr Rotton's stable clock strike five. I then went  

into a piece of wheat belonging to Mr Smallwood, and came back again. It must have  

been soon after five when I saw the prisoner come up to Haydon, at the flood-gates;  

for I have walked the ground over since, and it takes me just ten minutes, at a gentle  

pace. 

JAMES WHITE 

I remember seeing the prisoner on the morning of the 27th of May last, at  

Wheelwright's bank, where I was at work. It was then about twenty minutes past five,  

by Mr Wheelwright's clock. He was going towards his own home. I believe Mr  

Wheelwright's clock is about right with the Castle Bromwich town clock. The place  

where I saw the prisoner is about half a mile from his father's house, and about half a  

mile from Mr Twamley's mill. 

After the Defence was concluded, a pause ensued, and an awful silence  

prevaded the court; 

Then, Mr JUSTICE HOLROYD, taking a plan of the fields and  

neighbourhood in his hand, proceeded, in the most solemn manner, to deliver his  

charge to the jury, commenting on the evidence of the respective witnesses, in the  

most perspicuous manner and continually referring the jury in his comments on the  

evidence, to the plan; pointing out to them different roads and situations, as they were  

incidentally alluded to by the witnesses. His lordship concluded his elaborate address,  

with the following impressive sentences: 

'This,' said he, 'is one of those mysterious transactions, in which justice cannot  

be done, but by comparing, most carefully, all the facts and circumstances of the  

case-all the circumstances for, as well as those against, the accused. 

'Before they could convict the prisoner, they must be fully satisfied that he was  

guilty of the murder. If any fair and reasonable doubt arose in their minds, as to his  

guilt, the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of those doubts. But, if they were  

convinced that the evidence was satisfactory, and that the crime was fully proved  

against the prisoner, they were, in justice, bound to pronounce him guilty. Yet, in  

coming to this conclusion, it was their duty well to consider, whether it was possible  

for the pursuit to have taken place, and all the circumstances connected with it, and  

for the prisoner to have reached Holden's house, a distance of nearly three miles and a  

half, in the very short space of time, which, if the statements of all the witnesses were  

correct, would have been allowed him.' 

Finally, his lordship observed to the jury, 'that the whole of the evidence lay  

before them-and by that evidence only they were to be guided in their decision. It  

were better that the murderer, with all the weight of his crime upon his head, should  

escape punishment-than that another person should suffer death, without being  

guilty;' 

The learned judge having concluded his charge, the jury consulted for a few  

minutes, and then, to the utter astonishment of all who had taken an interest in this  

awful case, pronounced a verdict of NOT GUILTY, which the prisoner received with  

a smile of silent approbation, and an unsuccessful attempt at concealment of the  

violent apprehensions as to his fate, by which he had been inwardly agitated. 

He was then arraigned, pro forma, for the rape, but the counsel for the  

prosecution stated, that they should decline offering evidence on this indictment, and  

the prisoner was accordingly discharged. 

The court was crowded to excess, the trial occupied up wards of twelve hours  

and a half; the examination of witnesses on the part of the Crown engaged nearly  

eight hours and a half;-the defence took up about two hours;-and his lordship's  

charge to the jury about two hours more. 

Thus ended, for the present, the proceedings on this moat brutal and ferocious  

violation and murder; but the public at large, and most particularly the inhabitants of  

the neighbourhood in which it had been committed, were far from concurring in the  

verdict of acquittal; and just, deep, and reverential, as is the natural feeling entertained  

by every Englishman for the solemn verdict of a jury of his country men, the present  

decision was canvassed with a freedom hitherto unknown, and the press in every part  

of the kingdom, teemed with strictures on the whole proceeding, which failed not to  

excite the most active inquiries as to every particular connected with the mysterious  

event. 

The first fact discovered on this investigation, was that of Dale, the police- 

officer, having withheld from examination by the court during the trial, the breeches  

and linen of Thornton, which were in his possession, and which bore marks strongly  

corroborative of his guilt,-and Hannah Cox was upbraided with having knowingly  

stated the time in correctly, with a view of favouring Thornton-but the most important  

circumstance was the irreconcilability of the time as spoken to by the respective  

witnesses, founded on their opinions, as to the real time, and on references to crazy  

village clocks, not one of which was proved to be correct, or any of them in unison,  

but the whole of which were, like most country clocks, remarkable chiefly for their  

variation from true time, and from each other. 

On the flimsy ground of data furnished by these miserable and discordant  

statements of time, was the alibi founded which effected the acquittal of Thornton;  

but so strong was the moral conviction of his guilt upon the public mind, that  

measurements of the ground were taken afresh, subscriptions to defray the expense of  

a new prosecution were entered into, and the evidence laid before the Secretary of  

State, who, upon an investigation of the whole affair, granted his warrant to the  

Sheriff of Warwick, to take Thornton into custody on an APPEAL of MURDER, to  

be prosecuted by William Ashford, the brother and heir-at-law of the deceased. 

An APPEAL of MURDER is a very ancient, and now almost obsolete law, by  

which the nearest relative and heir-at-law of a person murdered, may demand a  

second trial of the party accused of the murder, in cases where, from a deficiency of  

evidence, or other cause, the prisoner may have been acquitted on the first trial,  

provided strong and reasonable ground of suspicion against the party accused still  

remains. 

The person so appealed of murder, may, however, on his part, if so advised,  

claim the right of TRIAL by WAGER of BATTLE, which the appellant is bound by  

law to grant him in his own person.  

Thornton was accordingly again arrested, and lodged in Warwick gaol, from  

whence he was removed by a writ of Habeas Corpus, as the proceedings on the Writ  

of Appeal were to be held in the Court of King's-bench, in Westminster-hall, London. 

On Thursday, November 6th, William Ashford appeared in the Court of  

King's-bench as plaintiff appellant, and Messrs. Clarke, Gurney, Chitty, and  

Richardson, as his Counsel. MrClarke moved that the Sheriff for the county of  

Warwick be called in to make a return to the writ of Habeas Corpus, who accordingly  

appeared with Thornton, as his prisoner. 

The counsel for Thornton, having stated that they had not had time sufficient  

to prepare for going into a case of such importance and novelty, begged to be allowed  

time to prepare for the discussion. The consideration of the case was accordingly  

fixed for the 17th of November, and the prisoner committed to the custody of the  

Marshal of the Marshalsea. 

On the 17th, the Court again met, and the proceedings were resumed. 

The prisoner Thornton, whom, it will be recollected, has been described as a  

strong athletic man, of extraordinary muscular power, had determined on availing  

himself of the barbarous privilege extended to him by the antiquated and absurd law  

under which he stood appealed, demanding TRIAL by WAGER of BATTLE,  

conscious of the decided advantage which his uncommon personal strength would  

give him over the dwarfish and delicate frame of the Appellant Ashford. 

Accordingly, when, in the proceedings of this day, he was asked, in the form  

of the court, Prisoner, are you guilty or not guilty of the said felony and murder  

whereof you stand so appealed? 

Mr Reader, one of his Counsel, put into Thornton's hand a slip of paper, from  

which he read, Not guilty; and I am ready to defend the same with my body. 

Mr Reader likewise handed him a pair of large gauntlets, or gloves, one of  

which he put on, and the other, in pursuance of the old form, he threw down for the  

Appellant to take up. It was not taken up; and Mr Reader moved that it should be kept  

in the custody of the officer of the Court. 

When the privilege of TRIAL by BATTLE is claimed by the Appellee, the  

judges have to consider whether, under all the circumstances, he is entitled to the  

exercise of such privilege; and his claim thereto having been admitted, they fix a day  

and place for the combat, which is conducted with the following solemnities: 

A piece of ground is set out, of sixty feet square, enclosed with lists, and on  

one side a court erected for the judges of the Court of Common fleas, who attend there  

in their scarlet robes; and also a bar is prepared for the learned Sergeants at Law.  

When the Court is assembled, proclamation is made for the parties, who are  

accordingly introduced in the area by the proper officers, each armed with a baton, or  

staff of an ell long, tipped with horn, and bearing a four-cornered leather target for  

defence. The combatants are bare headed and bare-footed, the Appellee with his head  

shaved, the Appellant as usual, but both dressed alike. The Appellee pleads Not  

Guilty, and throws down his glove, and declares he will defend the same by his body;  

the Appellant takes up the glove, and replies that he is ready to make good the appeal,  

body for body. And thereupon the Appellee, taking the Bible in his right hand, and in  

his left the right hand of his antagonist, swears to this effect: 'Hear this, O man, whom  

I hold by the hand, who callest thyself [John], by the name of baptism, that I, who call  

myself [Thomas], by the name of baptism, did not feloniously murder thy father,  

[William] by name, nor am any way guilty of the said felony. So help me God, and  

the Saints; and this I will defend against thee by my body, as this court shall award.' 

To which the Appellant replies, holding the Bible and his antagonist's hand, in  

the same manner as the other:  

Hear this, O man, whom I hold by the hand, who callest thyself [Thomas], by  

the name of baptism, that thou art perjured, because that thou feloniously didst murder  

my father, [William] by name. So help me God, and the Saints; and this I will prove  

against thee by my body, as this court shall award,' 

Next, an oath against sorcery and enchantment, is taken by both the  

combatants, in this or a similar form. 'Hear this, ye justices, that I have this day  

neither eat, drank, nor have upon me, neither bone, stone, ne grass; nor any  

enchantment, sorcery, or witchcraft, whereby the law of God may be abased, or the  

law of the devil exalted. So help me God and his Saints.' 

The battle is thus begun, and the combatants are bound to fight till the stars  

appear in the evening. 

If the Appellee be so far vanquished that be cannot or will not fight any  

longer, be shall be adjudged to be hanged immediately: and then, as well as if he be  

killed in battle, Providence is deemed to have determined in favour of the truth, and  

his blood shall be attainted. But if he kills the Appellant, or can maintain the fight  

from sun-rising till the stars appear in the evening, he shall be acquitted. So also, if the  

appellant became recreant and pronounced the word "Craven," he lost his liberam  

legem, and became infamous; and the appelee recovered his damages and was for ever  

quit, not only of the appeal, but of all indictments likewise of the same offence. There  

were cases where the appellant might counterplead, and oust the appellee from his  

trial by battle; these were vehement presumption: or sufficient proof that the appeal  

was true; or where the appellant was under fourteen or above sixty years of age, or  

was a woman or a priest, or a peer, or, lastly, a citizen of London, because the  

peaceful habits of the citizens were supposed to unfit them for battle. 

Besides the folly which on the very face of this proceeding must be obvious to  

every reader, namely, that 'right should follow might,' there are other absurdities  

which must tend to make it equally unpalatable to an enlightened age. It is almost  

needless to add that this remnant of barbarity has now ceased to exist, an Act of  

Parliament, the introduction of which was attributable to the this case, having  

removed it from the pages of the law-books by which our courts are governed. 

Clerk of the Crown-office-Prisoner, your plea is, that you are not guilty, and  

that you are ready to defend the said plea with your body? 

Prisoner-It is. 

Lord Ellenborough-Is the Appellant in Court? 

Mr Clarke-He is, my lord. 

Lord Ellenborough-Call him by name. 

The Usher then called-'William Ashford, come into court.' The Appellant  

stood up in front of Mr Clarke. 

Lord Ellenborough-What have you got to say, Mr Clarke? 

Mr Clarke-My lord, I did not expect at this time of day, that this sort of  

demand would have been made. I must confess I am surprised that the charge against  

the prisoner should be put to issue in this way. The Trial by Battle is an obsolete  

practice, which has long since been out of use; and it would appear to me  

extraordinary indeed, if the person who has murdered the sister should, as the law  

exists in these enlightened times, be allowed to prove his innocence by murdering the  

brother also, or at least, by an attempt to do so. 

Lord Ellenborough-It is the law of England, Mr Clarke, we must not call it  

murder. 

Mr Clarke-I may have used too strong an expression, in saying murdering the  

brother; but at all events, it is no less than killing. I apprehend, however, that the  

course to be taken is, in a great measure, discretionary; and it will be for the court to  

determine, under all the circumstances, whether they will permit a Battle to be waged  

in this case or not. It is not entirely with the Appellee to decide what it shall be fit to  

do. The court will, no doubt, look to the person of the Appellant, and seeing that he is  

weak of body, as it is evident, and by no means capable of combating in battle with  

the Appellee, they will, perhaps, not permit the issue to be put upon personal contest. 

A discussion then arose as to the authority for refusing the right of the  

Appellee to the Trial by Wager of Battle, and the further hearing of the case was  

postponed to the 22nd of November, in order to enable the Appellant to put in a  

counter-plea. 

On the 22nd November, the case was again brought on in the Court of King's- 

bench, before the Lord Chief Justice, for the purpose of giving the Counsel for the  

Appellant an opportunity of putting in a counter-plea, or plea in bar, to the Appellee's  

demand of Trial by Battle. 

The counter-plea was accordingly put in; it recited at very great length the  

circumstances of the violation and murder of the deceased, Mart Ashford, as deduced  

from the evidence already given at large in the account of the trial; and concluded by  

stating that the marks on the prisoner's linen, and other circumstances corroborative of  

his having been the violator and murderer, afforded presumption of guilt sufficiently  

violent to deprive him of the privilege of Trial by Wager of Battle, and the Appellant  

accordingly prayed the judgment of the Court against him. 

To this counter-plea the Appellee's Counsel acknowledged themselves at that  

moment unprepared to reply, and after some discussion, it was finally agreed, with the  

consent of all parties, that the further proceedings, should, on account of the lateness  

of the term, be postponed till the second day of the following term; the court therefore  

ordered accordingly, and the prisoner was conveyed to the King's-bench prison,  

instead of the Marshalsea, as on the former days. 

On the 23rd of January, 1818, term commenced, and on the 24th, the second  

day, pursuant to adjournment, the singular case was again brought before the judges.  

The business of this day embraced the consideration of the Appellee's Replication, or  

reply to the Appellant's counter-plea; this replication was a long, tedious, and wordy  

document, in which the Appellee replied, as well as he could, to the charges furnished  

in evidence on the trial, and recapitulated in the Appellant's counter-plea; and  

concluded by quoting the former trial and acquittal as a proof of his innocence, and  

finally demanding his right to Trial by Battle. 

Time was allowed the Appellant's Counsel to answer this replication, which  

put off the proceedings till the following Thursday, January 29th, on which day the  

Appellant's answer was put in; this answer was a general demurrer, or joining of issue  

upon the point of law to be determined by the judges denying that the Appellee's  

replication was sufficient in point of law to compel him to answer, and praying that  

the Appellee might not be permitted to wage battle in the appeal; upon this, the  

prisoner put in a written paper, insisting that his replication was good in matter of law,  

and repeating his prayer to be allowed to wage battle with Appellant. 

The case was again adjourned to the 6th of February, on which day Mr  

CHITTY, for the Appellant, contended in a learned, ingenious, and admirable speech,  

which occupied more than four hours in the delivery, that the replication to the  

counter-plea was insufficient, and that the defendant ought not to be admitted to  

wager battle, but submit to the constitutional trial of the charge by a jury of his  

countrymen. 

On the following day, Mr TYNDAL, as Counsel for the Appellee, was heard  

in reply. In an elaborate and masterly speech he combatted the arguments of Mr  

Chitty, and finally submitted that, barbarous as was the practice of Wager of Battle,  

the defendant was fully entitled to the privilege, or that the appeal should be  

altogether discharged, and the defendant set at liberty. 

The lateness of the hour at which Mr Tyndal concluded, not allowing  

sufficient time for Mr Chitty to reply to these observations, the case was again  

adjourned to the following term, and, on the 16th of April, was recommenced, when  

Mr Chitty again contended that the proofs against the defendant were sufficiently  

violent to deprive him of his Wager of Baffle, and ultimately left the case in the hands  

of the court to decide upon the point of law. 

The learned judges, lord chief-justice Ellenborough, Mr justice Bayley, Mr  

justice Abbott, and Mr justice Holroyd, accordingly entered into a consultation, which  

lasted about a quarter of an hour, and then delivered their opinions seriatim; the  

substance of which opinions was, that sitting there, in their judicial capacities, to  

adminster the law, as they found it, and not as they wished it to be, they considered  

that nothing had been brought forward by the learned counsel for the Appellant,  

which they could consider calculated to oust the defendant from his right to claim  

Trial by Wager of Battle, and Lord Ellenborough accordingly proceeded to pronounce  

the decision of the court,-'That there be Trial by Battle, unless the Appellant shew  

reason why the defendant should not depart without day.' 

Mr Gurney then, on the part of the Appellant, craved time to consider the  

propriety of applying for the judgment of the court upon this point, and at his request,  

time was given till the following Monday, the 20th April, 1818; on which day, he  

informed their lordships, that as the court had decreed the Appellee's right to Wager  

of Battle, he had nothing further to pray. 

Mr Reader, for the defendant, then said, my lord, I submit the Appellant must  

be called; and that he must accept the Wager of Battle, or consent that the defendant  

be permitted to go free without day. 

Lord Ellenborough-Very well, let him be called. 

Mr Gurney said, the Appellant did appear in court, though he did not pray  

anything, but left his case with their lordships, who he (Mr Gurney) understood had to  

consider whether any and what effect would attach to him for not praying judgment in  

consequence of any future proceeding on the part of the defendant. 

Mr Richardson-My lord, it cannot be considered that we abandon the appeal;  

the Appellant is in court, though he does not pray anything. 

Mr Reader-Mr Gurney; do you consent, on the part of the Appellant, that the  

defendant be discharged, and allowed to go free without day. 

Mr Gurney - I do, on the part of the Appellant, give such consent. 

Mr Reader-Then I have only to pray the court that he be so discharged. 

Mr justice Bayley-I conceive the course now to be pursued is this. The  

Appellant prays nothing. The defendant, therefore, as far as the Appellant is  

concerned, goes free; but he must now be arraigned at the suit of the Crown; so that  

you will plead the trial and acquittal which has already taken place, but of which,  

upon the present proceedings, the Crown must be supposed ignorant, although it is a  

fact well known to the parties. 

Lord Ellenborough-This is a proceeding between individuals of which the  

court knows nothing. He must be arraigned at the suit of the Crown, to which he may  

plead the record of his former acquittal. The Attorney-General will, perhaps, give his  

assent to this plea. 

The prisoner was then arraigned-'Prisoner at the bar, Abraham Thornton, hold  

up your hand. You, the prisoner at the bar, stand appealed by the name and  

description of Abraham Thornton, late of Castle Bromwich, in the county of  

Warwick, labourer, for that you, not having the fear of God before your eyes, but  

being moved and instigated by the devil, did, on the 27th of May, in the 57th year of  

the reign of his majesty, in the parish of Sutton Coldfield, in the county of Warwick,  

in and upon the body of Mary Ashford, make an assault, and her, the said Mary  

Ashford, throw into a certain pit of water, wherein she was suffocated and drowned,'- 

how say you, are you guilty of the felony and murder charged on you by the said  

appeal, or not guilty? 

Appellee-Not Guilty. 

Mr Reader put in a copy of the record of the trial and acquittal of his client on  

this charge, before Mr justice Holroyd, at Warwick, on the 8th of August last; and  

upon that record the learned counsel prayed their lordship's judgment, that the  

defendant might be discharged. 

Lord Ellenborough-Then the judgment of the court is-That the defendant be  

discharged from this Appeal, and that he be allowed to go forth without bail. 

Thus did the rigid application of the letter of the law, a second time snatch this  

guilty man from the punishment, which, even on his own admission of guilt, he had so  

fully incurred; but nothing could remove from the public mind the conviction of his  

atrocity, so deeply impressed by the very first narration of the dreadful tale, and which  

even his own conduct and gloomy broodings, after he was set at liberty, served to  

strengthen and confirm. A wretched outcast, shunned and dreaded by all who knew.  

him, and even his very name become an object of dread and terror in the  

neighbourhood of his family, he, a few months after his liberation, attempted to  

proceed to America, but the sailors of the vessel in which he was about to take his  

passage, refused to proceed to sea with such a character on board; disguising himself,  

he succeeded in a subsequent attempt in procuring a passage, and thus relieved this  

country from as large a load of moral crime as ever disgraced and oppressed it in the  

form of a human being.

THE END 

THE NEWGATE CALENDAR 

-2- 

-227- 

VOLUME 5 

-228-