family; and in the year 1775, at the age of sixteen years, he entered
the army, and went to America. In the following year he was taken
prisoner of war, but was soon after released, and retired from service
with a pension for wounds.
He subsequently entered the army of Frederic the Great of Prussia; but
in 1779 he again returned to England, and then married an English lady
of great respectability, whom he met at Harwich. During a visit to
France a short time afterwards, he became acquainted with the Duchess of
Kingston, _alias_ the Countess of Bristol, (whose case we have already
given,) whom he accompanied on her visit to Russia, and having there
consented to join the Russian service, he was appointed captain in the
Imperial Army by Prince Potemkin. During his employment in this
capacity, his conduct was such as to gain for him many honours; but in
the year 1784, being dissatisfied with his position, he retired to
Copenhagen, from whence he eventually returned to England, and there
misfortune fell upon him in its worst form.
On the 1st of September 1785, very soon therefore after his arrival in
this country, he was indicted for feloniously stealing a post-chaise,
value 50_l_., the property of John Lycett, a coachmaker in Whitechapel;
and upon the trial, it appeared that he had hired the post-chaise fora
limited period, as he alleged to support the character which he was
entitled to maintain, but that it was never returned. The defence set up
was that the transaction could only be looked upon in the nature of a
civil contract, and that the chaise having been regularly ordered and
sent home, no charge could be brought against the prisoner except that
arising on the sale of the carriage, and that he could only be held to
be indebted for its value. Upon argument, however, the court held that
there had been a felonious dealing with the carriage, and the prisoner
was found guilty and sentenced to be transported for seven years. He was
conveyed to Woolwich on his way to a penal settlement, but he was
eventually pardoned on condition of his going abroad.
From Woolwich therefore he went to France; and there he became
acquainted with Beruyer, Péthion, Roland, and several of the leaders of
the day. He was present at the trial of Louis XVI., and shortly after
resolved on returning to England, in consequence of the rupture with
this country, which he then saw was inevitable. He therefore obtained a
passport; he was denounced to the committee of public safety as a spy,
who was going to join the enemy; but being secretly apprised of what was
going forward, he was able to effect his escape, although with some
difficulty, before the order for his arrest was issued.
On his escape he joined the allied army against France, and
distinguished himself on various occasions, but particularly in the
battle of St. Fronde, which lasted three days; and at the time of the
retirement of the King of Prussia from this campaign, he found himself
incapacitated from service, and almost destitute of the means of
existence. After a short retirement, however, he had recovered
sufficiently to remove to Augsburgh; and on his arrival at that place he
was suddenly arrested by order of the Baron d'Ompteda, in the name of
his Britannic majesty; but his imprisonment not being legal, he was
shortly afterwards set at liberty.
Considering he had been ill used on the Continent, Semple again returned
to England; and in 1795 we again find him at the bar of the Old Bailey,
on a charge of stealing in the shop of Mr. Wattleworth, in Wigmore
Street, one yard of muslin, two yards of calico, and one linen shirt.
It was proved that the prisoner came into the shop of Mr. Wattleworth,
about noon, on the 10th of November 1794, and, showing two patterns, one
of muslin, and the other of calico, said he wanted them matched for Mrs.
Coningham, of Egham Green. They could not find an exact match in the
shop to the muslin; but he chose one; and a yard being cut off, together
with two yards of calico, he said he would give them to the lady's
servant, then at the door; and, calling in a man, he gave them to him.
He then said that he had just arrived from the Continent, and should
want a quantity of shirts, and wished to take one with him to consult
his sister, who, he thought, would be a better judge of the linen than
he was; that he would bring it back in the morning, and then give his
order. He called his sister Mrs. Coningham; and as Mr. Wattleworth had a
customer of that name, he made no hesitation, but gave him the shirt
under those conditions. This happened in November; but the prosecutor
never saw the prisoner again until January, when he was in custody in
Bow Street.
The counsel for the prisoner contended that the charge of the felony was
not made out, the evidence, if true, amounting only to that of obtaining
goods under false pretences. Mr. Justice Buller, who tried the cause,
admitted the counsel was perfectly right as to the calico and muslin;
but he did not agree with him in respect to the shirt, and therefore
left that question to the jury.
The prisoner, in his defence, entered into a history of his past life
with a view of showing, that although he had been before convicted, his
general course of conduct was not that of living by fraud; but the jury
found him guilty of stealing the shirt, and he was once more sentenced
to seven years' transportation.
Notwithstanding his notoriety, (for there were many other charges
against him,) many persons, amongst whom were Burke and Boswell,
interested themselves in his behalf; but after remaining about two years
in Newgate in a state of uncertainty as to his future destiny, he was
at length removed to Portsmouth, and from thence proceeded to New South
Wales. On the passage a mutiny broke out on board the transport in which
he sailed; and Semple being one of the ringleaders, he, with
twenty-eight others, was sent adrift in an open boat. He had contrived
to conceal a quantity of gold in some soap, and succeeded in carrying it
off with him; and after a dangerous passage, he and his companions
landed in safety at Fort St. Pedro, in the province of Rio Grande. They
were received with great hospitality by the governor of the Fort; and
Semple was introduced by his fellows as a Dutch officer and passenger, a
tale of shipwreck being trumped up; but a quarrel arising among them,
their real character was subsequently exposed. After remaining during a
considerable time at Brazils, in the year 1798 he went to Lisbon; but
there he was arrested by an order of the British minister, and sent to
Gibraltar, and while there, being suspected of being a party to a
conspiracy which was discovered, he was again arrested and sent to
Tangier.
In December 1798, a despatch arrived from England, ordering him home in
custody; and he was accordingly sent on board a ship, and arrived at
Portsmouth the following April. He was immediately conveyed to
Tothill-fields Bridewell, where he remained till he was again sent out
of the country.
From this period nothing particular occurred in the major's life until
his return from Botany Bay in 1810, when he resorted to his former evil
practices; but as he became more notorious he became less successful,
until at length he was reduced to the utmost distress, and had recourse
to the basest means of supporting a miserable existence.
In 1814 he went into a cheesemonger's shop in Devonshire Street, Queen
Square, and ordered a small quantity of bacon and butter to be sent to
No. 42, Cross Street. He met the messenger at the door, and taking the
articles from him, sent him back for six-pennyworth of eggs. When the
boy returned, he knocked at the door, and was informed that the person
he inquired for did not live there, and that they knew nothing about
him. This was true, for the major had only made a feint of going in to
deceive the boy, and had made off when the lad was out of sight.
For this offence he was apprehended, and brought to trial at the
Middlesex Sessions, December the 3rd, 1814, and found guilty, when, for
the third time, sentence of transportation for seven years was passed on
him.
WILLIAM SAWYER.
EXECUTED FOR A MURDER IN PORTUGAL.
The circumstances of this very singular case may be shortly stated as
follows:--The prisoner was engaged in the commissariat department of the
British army; and in the month of February 1814, he went out to
Portugal, where he lived in the same house in the Campo Mayor, at
Lisbon, with a friend, Mr. Riccord, who had a female, named Harriet
Gaskett, under his protection. An attachment grew up between this
unfortunate woman and Sawyer, who, however, had a wife at the time in
England; and his attentions were so apparent, that they excited the
jealousy of his brother officer, and he appears to have remonstrated
with his friend and mistress, which occasioned much infelicity.
On the 27th of April they met at dinner, with two or three other
officers; but such was the agitation of their feelings, that Riccord,
Harriet, and Sawyer ate nothing. The latter appeared greatly dejected,
and, as well as Harriet, withdrew as soon as possible.
In the evening the party heard the report of three pistol-shots; and, on
going into the garden, Harriet and Sawyer were found both lying on the
ground. Harriet was quite dead, but Sawyer had not been mortally
wounded. On his being removed into the house, he was left in the care of
a brother officer, while the others went in search of a physician; and
during their absence he contrived to get a razor, with which he cut his
throat in a dreadful manner, but not mortally.
Next day the officers met, and reduced the facts to writing; and the
prisoner signed the document, as well as a paper in the following terms:
"Having laid violent hands upon myself, in consequence of the death of
Harriet, I think it but justice to mankind and the world, being of sound
mind, solemnly to attest that her death was occasioned by her having
taken part of a phial of laudanum, and 'my' discharging a pistol at her
head, provided for the occasion. I took the residue of the laudanum
myself, and discharged two pistols at my head. They failing in their
effect, I then retired to the house and endeavoured to put an end to my
life, leaving myself the unfortunate object you now behold me.
(Signed) "WILLIAM SAWYER."
And three witnesses.
The word "my," in the above paper, was interlined.
The prisoner also signed a declaration, that Harriet Gaskett had
consented to leave Mr. Riccord and live with him, and that Mr. Riccord
had told her, on her threatening to quit him, that she might go to the
prisoner's hotel. The reason assigned by him for the attempted suicide
and murder was, that Harriet declared that she thought that Mr. Riccord
would shoot himself if she quitted him, and that she therefore would not
live; and he added, that he had shot her at her own request, and not in
consequence of any quarrel with her, and had then attempted to kill
himself.
When the prisoner was sufficiently recovered, he was removed to England,
where, shortly after his arrival, he was indicted at the Old Bailey,
April the 7th, 1815, for the above murder. His case excited great
interest, and the court was filled long before the arrival of the
judges.
The facts already stated having been proved, the prisoner was called on
for his defence. He put in a written paper, in which he stated that, in
consequence of his being unable to articulate, from the wound in his
throat, he had committed to paper all he had to say in his defence. The
paper then went on to state that the prisoner had felt the sincerest
affection for the unfortunate individual in question, towards whom he
had never meditated the slightest injury. He perfectly recollected her
having entreated him to shoot her, but had no idea of what passed
subsequently, till some time afterwards, when he was told he had signed
papers, of the contents of which he had no recollection. He then
expressed acknowledgments for the efforts made by his prosecutors to
bring forward Mr. Riccord, who would have been a material witness in his
behalf; and had only to lament that these efforts had not been attended
with success.
Several persons were called to speak to the general humane character of
the prisoner, among whom were General Sir Edward Howard and Colonel Sir
William Robe.
A Mrs. Nicholls proved that the deceased had lodged with her from June
1813, to February 1814. She was of a most violent and tyrannical
disposition, and had a pistol, which she kept constantly in her room.
Lord Ellenborough having summed up the case, the jury found the prisoner
guilty, but recommended him to mercy.
Mr. Alley and Mr. Curwood on behalf of the prisoner then moved in arrest
of judgment, upon two technical points which arose upon the face of the
indictment, and judgment was respited until the 12th of May. The court
on that day, however, gave their opinion that the grounds of motion were
unavailable, and sentence of death was immediately passed.
The prisoner appeared deeply affected throughout the proceedings, and
upon the awful decision and sentence, remained motionless for some time,
when at length he faintly requested one of the officers to entreat the
court to recommend him to the royal clemency.
Monday, May the 22d, 1815, being the day appointed for the execution of
this infatuated man, at an early hour an immense number of spectators
had assembled in the Old Bailey to witness the awful scene. After the
sentence of death was passed on him, he assumed a degree of sullenness;
and the only declaration he was heard to make was, "that he would not be
executed:" and this being considered to import that he was resolved on
self-destruction, his intentions, if such they were, were defeated by
the constant attendance of two officers night and day. On Sunday he
received the sacrament, after which he appeared more composed. About
three o'clock his wife went to the prison for the purpose of taking a
farewell: she was announced by an officer; but the unhappy man gave a
peremptory order that she should not be admitted, and all that could be
urged could not induce him to see her. When he went to his cell, he was
much depressed, and refused any kind of sustenance; and at about two
o'clock he lay down, and soon after became very sick, and vomited
copiously. He continued restless until half-past six o'clock, at which
time he was visited by the Rev. Mr. Cotton, who prayed to him fervently.
A little before eight o'clock Mr. Sheriff Reay, attended by the usual
officers, proceeded from Justice Hall towards the cell. The unfortunate
gentleman was introduced into the Press-yard by the ordinary: he was
very dejected, and did not utter a word during the time of his being
conveyed to the platform. At eight o'clock precisely, every necessary
arrangement being complete, the fatal signal was given, and the unhappy
man was launched into eternity. During the ceremony a profound silence
prevailed throughout the populace. He died under evident symptoms of
paroxysm, and a quantity of blood gushed from his mouth from the cut in
his throat. At nine o'clock the body was taken to Bartholemew's Hospital
in a cart, attended by the under-sheriff and officers. He was dressed in
a suit of black, and was not ironed.
ELIZABETH FENNING.
EXECUTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO POISON A FAMILY.
The extraordinary interest taken by the public in this case at the time
of its occurrence induces us to give it at considerable length, in order
that its weight and bearings may be justly appreciated and considered.
The propriety of the conviction of the unfortunate young woman was much
questioned; and upon a careful perusal of its circumstances we think
that at the least it must be concluded that the case was attended with
considerable doubt.
It appears that Elizabeth Fenning was born in the island of Dominica, in
the West Indies, on the 10th of June, 1793. Her father, William Fenning,
was a native of Suffolk, and belonged to the first battalion of the 15th
regiment of infantry. Her mother was a native of Cork, in Ireland: her
parents were respectable, and she was married to Fenning in 1787, in her
native town, where the regiment had been quartered. In 1790 they sailed
from the Cove of Cork for the island of Barbadoes, and from thence to
Dominica.
In 1796 or 1797 the regiment came home, having suffered great mortality,
and were quartered in Dublin. In 1802 Fenning solicited and obtained his
discharge, with a certificate of his good character, which it appears he
merited, as he rose to the rank of a non-commissioned officer; and he
then came to London, and entered the service of his brother, a
potato-dealer in Red Lion-street, Holborn, with whom he continued for
three years, and afterwards lived as servant in a potato-warehouse in
Red Lion Passage, where his correct conduct gave satisfaction to three
successive proprietors. His wife, for five years, worked for one
upholsterer--a sufficient proof of her good conduct. They had ten
children, all of whom, except the subject of this narrative, died young.
At the age of fourteen, she was placed out in service to obtain her own
living; and at the latter end of January, 1815, she was hired as cook in
the family of a Mr. Orlibar Turner, at No. 68, Chancery-lane, where she
had not been above seven weeks when circumstances unhappily arose which
led to the poor creature's being charged with an attempt to poison her
master's family.
The facts of the case will be best explained by the following report of
the trial.
Eliza Fenning was indicted at the Old Bailey, April the 11th, 1815, for
that she, on the 21st of March, 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 the said persons to kill and murder.
The case was stated by Mr. Gurney; after which--
Mrs. Charlotte Turner deposed--I am the wife of Mr. Robert Gregson
Turner, who is a law-stationer in Chancery-lane, in partnership with his
father, Mr. Orlibar Turner, who lives at Lambeth. About seven weeks
before the accident, the prisoner came into my service as cook; and
about three weeks after, I had occasion to reprove her, for I observed
her, one night, go into the young men's room partly undressed. There
were two young men, about seventeen or eighteen years old. I reproved
her severely next morning for her conduct; and the excuse was, that she
went in to fetch the candle. I threatened to discharge her, but on her
expressing sorrow for the offence, I forgave her, and she remained in my
employment. During the subsequent month, I observed that she failed to
pay me that respect which I considered due to me, and she appeared
extremely sullen. About a fortnight before the transaction now charged
against her, she requested me to permit her to make some yeast
dumplings, saying that she was a capital hand at it; and she frequently
subsequently repeated the same request. On Monday the 20th of March, she
came to me in the dining-room, and again asked me to allow her to make
some dumplings, and said that the brewer had brought some yeast; and I
said that as that was the case she might make the dumplings the next
day, although that was not the way in which I usually had them made, as
I generally had the dough from the baker's. On Tuesday morning I went
into the kitchen according to my custom, and I bade the prisoner make a
beef-steak pie for the young men before she made the dumplings, and she
carried the pie to the baker's before kneading the dough. I gave her
some directions as to the manner in which I liked the dumplings, and
then went away. In about half-an-hour, however, I returned into the
kitchen, and I then found the dough placed before the fire to rise. I
have another servant in my employment named Sarah Peer, but I am certain
that she could not have entered the kitchen during the time occupied in
the preparation of the dumplings, as she was engaged by my direction in
a bedroom mending a counterpane. I was subsequently in and out of the
kitchen two or three times, and I observed that the dough did not rise.
It was in a singular shape; and it remained heavy all the time. At about
three o'clock we sat down to dinner, and there were six dumplings
brought to table. I observed to Sarah Peer that they were black and
heavy instead of their being white and light. My husband, Robert Gregson
Turner, and his father, Orlibar Turner, sat down to dinner with me: I
helped them to some dumplings, and took a small piece myself. I found
myself affected in a few minutes after I had eaten it. I did not eat a
quarter of a dumpling. I felt myself very faint--an excruciating pain,
which increased every minute: it came so bad that I was obliged to leave
the table--I went up stairs. I ate, beside the dumpling, a piece of
rump-steak cooked by Eliza. When I was up stairs I perceived my sickness
increased, and I observed my head was swollen extremely. I retched very
violently: I was half an hour alone, and wondered they did not come to
my assistance. I found my husband and father very ill--both of them. I
was very ill from half-past-three until about nine; the violence then
abated, but did not cease. My head and my tongue and chest were swollen.
We called in a gentleman who was near, and afterwards Mr. Marshall, the
surgeon. We applied for the nearest assistance we could get.
_Cross-examined by Mr. Alley._--This happened about six weeks after the
girl came to live with me. I have heard the prisoner herself was taken
very ill.
Orlibar Turner deposed--I am the father of Robert Gregson Turner. On
Tuesday, the 21st day of March, I was at my son's house in
Chancery-lane: I dined there. The dinner consisted of yeast dumplings,
beef-steaks, and potatoes. After some time Mrs. Turner left the room
indisposed. At the time she left the room I did not know she was ill.
Sometime after my son left the room, and went down stairs. I followed
him very shortly. I met my son in the passage at the foot of the stairs:
he told me that he had been very sick, and had brought up his dinner. I
found his eyes exceedingly swollen. I said I thought it very
extraordinary, and I was taken ill myself in less than three minutes
afterwards. The effect was so violent, I had hardly time to go into the
back yard before my dinner came up. I felt considerable heat across my
stomach and chest, and pain: I never experienced any vomiting before
like it, for violence; it was terrible indeed. It was not more than a
quarter of an hour when my apprentice, Roger Gadsden, was very ill, in a
similar way to myself. While we were sick I was repeatedly in the
parlour and the back yard. My son was up and down stairs at intervals;
Gadsden, I believe, was in the kitchen below. The prisoner gave no
assistance. We were all alarmed: but it was discovered that she did not
appear concerned at our situation. I did not observe the prisoner eat
any of the dumplings. I had a suspicion of arsenic, and made a search
the next morning. I then observed in the pan, in which the dumplings had
been mixed, that there was a white powder, unlike flour, and I retained
it in my possession until I gave it into the hands of Mr. Marshall.
Arsenic had been kept in the drawer in the office, tied up in a paper
very tightly, and labelled "Arsenic, poison," in large characters. I saw
the parcel there on the 7th of March, but not since that time. It was
missed about a fortnight before the 21st of March. The prisoner may have
seen the parcel, as she usually resorted to the drawer for paper to
light her fires. After dinner I remarked that the knives with which the
dumplings had been cut had changed colour. They turned black and they
still remain so. I spoke to the prisoner about the dumplings on the
Wednesday, and I asked her how she came to put anything into them so
hurtful, but she answered that it was not in anything which she had
prepared, but in the milk which Sarah Peer had brought in, and with
which her mistress had ordered her to make the sauce. That milk had been
used in the sauce only. The dumplings had been mixed with the milk which
had been left at breakfast.