history of the Messrs. Wakefield. At the time of the commission of the
offence for the participation in which they suffered so severe a
punishment, Mr. E. G. Wakefield was a barrister, and although he was not
known as possessing any practice in the profession of the law, he was
understood to be in the receipt of an income of about 1000_l._ a year.
He was at this time a widower with two children, having eloped with his
first wife from a school. His children were in Paris; but upon his
committal to Lancaster Castle, they followed him to that place with
their governess. Mr. Wakefield was at that time about thirty years of
age, and in a letter which was addressed by a person named Collier on
his behalf to the newspapers, he denied the allegation that he was
unacquainted with Miss Turner before the elopement, declaring that he
had previously met her at a public ball. In the course of the time
occupied by the public in the discussion of the case, he put forth a
statement of facts, denying that any force or fraud had been used
towards Miss Turner; and subsequently, while in Newgate, he published a
pamphlet, the object of which was to show that Miss Turner was really
his wife, that she was a consenting party to the marriage, and that no
ground therefore existed for the divorce. Mr. Wakefield has since become
well known in the mercantile world from his connexion with several
public companies.
Mr. W. Wakefield at the time of this offence was much younger than his
brother, and appears to have acted almost entirely under the directions
of the latter. He was married only a few days before his apprehension to
a lady entitled to move in the most respectable ranks of society. He has
since, we believe, served with honour and credit to himself in the army
of one of our European allies, in which he obtained the rank of colonel,
and at this time he holds an important trust in a colony newly formed at
New Zealand.
The following case, which is mentioned in the Continuation of Rapin,
will no doubt prove interesting as illustrative of the circumstances
which we have just detailed:--"During this session of parliament (1690,
3rd William and Mary) happened an incident which made a great noise.
Captain James Campbell, brother to the Earl of Argyle, on the 14th of
November, forcibly seized on Miss Mary Wharton, daughter and heiress of
Sir George Wharton, a fortune, as it was said, of 50,000_l._, and about
thirteen years of age. She was carried away from her relations in Great
Queen-street, and married against her will. The next day his majesty
issued his royal proclamation for apprehending Mr. Campbell and the
abettors of this unwarrantable action, and Sir John Johnston being
apprehended, was tried, condemned, and executed at Tyburn,
notwithstanding great application was made to the king and the relations
of the bride to save his life; which was thought the harder, as it
appeared upon his trial that Miss Wharton had given evident proofs that
the violence Captain Campbell used was not so much against her will as
her lawyers endeavoured to make it. Not long before, there was a bill
brought into the House of Commons to prevent clandestine marriages,
which it was thought this incident would have accelerated, but it
dropped. However, another bill was brought into the House of Commons the
4th December, to render void the marriage between Miss Wharton and Mr.
Campbell, which, notwithstanding the Earl of Argyle petitioned against
it on behalf of his brother, passed both houses by the 13th of
December."
It may be well to state that considerable doubt was at first entertained
as to the nature of the offence committed by the defendants in this
case. By an act of 3 Henry 7, c. 2, it was made a capital felony to
carry off and marry women, being of substance or heirs apparent,
forcibly. There was another statute, 4 & 5 Philip and Mary, which
referred to the abduction and marriage of such women without force; but
there were subsequent statutes by which those provisions which rendered
the offence capital were repealed. The proceedings against the
defendants therefore assumed the more lenient form which we have
described.
It is only necessary for us further to state, that Miss Turner was
subsequently married to Mr. Legh, a gentleman of wealth and
consideration in the north of England, but that she unfortunately died
in giving birth to her first child.
JOSHUA SLADE.
EXECUTED FOR THE MURDER OF THE REV. J. WATERHOUSE.
The circumstances attending this atrocious case will be best described
and understood by the repetition of the confession of the murderer,
while lying in the jail at Huntingdon after his conviction of the
offence for which he was executed.
It would appear that the unfortunate gentleman who was the victim of his
crime was a person of most eccentric habits. He was possessed of a
rectory, at Stukeley, near Huntingdon, of the value of about 400_l._ a
year; and attached to the land which he held was an elegant
rectory-house. His habits of parsimony had induced him to give up the
occupation of the greater portion of this dwelling as a residence; and
he had stored many of the best rooms, furnished as they were, with
grain, the produce of his farm. A like feeling had excited in his mind
an indisposition to pay taxes for more windows than were absolutely
necessary to give light to the apartment which he used; and out of about
forty windows in his house, two only were suffered to remain. He lived
constantly in the kitchen, without any regular female domestic, and
performed the office of cook for himself and his workmen. Every Saturday
the reverend gentleman walked to Huntingdon market, a distance of
between three and four miles, frequently driving his pigs before him;
and after having transacted his farming business, he used to carry home
his tea and sugar, and other necessaries for the week, in a basket. His
known parsimony appears to have induced the criminal to commit the foul
crime of which he was guilty.
It seems that Mr. Waterhouse was about fifty-five years of age; and the
house which he occupied was situated nearly in the centre of the village
of Stukeley, but stood alone in the farm-yard about fifty yards from the
street. On the morning of Tuesday, 3rd July, 1827, the reverend
gentleman arose at about five o'clock, and was occupied until about ten
with his farming business. He then gave some instructions to one of his
workmen, and retired to his own house; and between this hour and eleven
o'clock the murder was accomplished. The body was first discovered by
two farmboys, who found it lying in a mash-tub; but in consequence of
the eccentricity of the deceased, they were induced to suppose that he
was only joking, and they took no notice of the circumstance. The truth,
however, was eventually discovered, and it was found that the
unfortunate man had been murdered in a most barbarous manner. Suspicion
at once attached to Slade, who eventually confessed himself to have been
guilty of this most atrocious crime, and he was taken into custody.
Circumstances were then discovered which left little doubt of his being
the guilty person, and upon his trial the jury returned a verdict to
that effect. Considerable anxiety was entertained in reference to the
case by the learned Judge, who deemed the evidence inconclusive; and the
trial having taken place on the 1st of August, he respited the unhappy
prisoner until the 1st of September, in order that further inquiries
might be made. On the 2nd of August, however, the convict confessed the
crime in the following terms:--
"On the morning of the 3rd of July, 1827, I went direct from the Swan
public-house at a quarter past two, and got over the garden-wall. I was
then fresh. I saw Peter Soby at his door. I went to a straw wall near
the dove-house, and laid there till five in the morning. I had a sword
hid in the straw wall about five weeks, which I had stolen from the
Horse and Jockey public-house, Huntingdon. I drew the sword out, and
left the scabbard in the wall, and I put the sword down my trousers by
my thigh. On my going out, I saw Mr. Waterhouse in the yard; but he did
not see me. The garden-door of the house was not fastened, and I went to
it and opened it; and I went up stairs and hid myself in the wool
chamber from five until ten o'clock, intending to rob the house at
night. While lying there, I went to sleep, and I dare say I snored. Mr.
Waterhouse happening to come up stairs, heard me breathe; and coming
into the room, he exclaimed, 'Hollo! who are you? what do you do here?'
I then got up, drew the sword and laid hold of him. He wanted to go into
the room where his blunderbuss was, but I would not let him. I led him
down stairs, but nothing was said. He attempted to get away, but I would
not let him; and when we got to the ground floor, I said, 'Now, Mr.
Waterhouse, if you'll forgive me, I'll forgive you; and if not, this is
your death-warrant' (holding up the sword.) He said, 'No, I will suffer
any thing first.' I then let him go, and he went to run by to the
kitchen-door to call somebody; but just as he turned into the kitchen I
caught him a backhanded blow across the jaw, and he reeled back, caught
himself against the tub, and fell backwards into it. While in this
situation, I struck him several times; and he guarded the blows off
with his arm. He laid hold of the sword twice; upon which I drew it out
of his hands and cut his fingers. I also stabbed him in the throat,
which was the last blow; and he then said, 'I'm done,' and died
immediately. There was no blood on me except on my finger, and one spot
on my waistcoat, and that I wiped out directly. I didn't hear the dog
bark all the time; and he wouldn't bark at me, for he knew me. The
kitchen-door leading to the yard was wide open all the time, but no
person came near the house. Having committed the murder, which was all
finished by ten minutes past ten o'clock, I immediately ran out of the
house, and I turned to the right and threw the bloody sword among some
young trees. I ran away, and continued at work until seven at night; and
then I went home, had my supper, and went to bed."
A search was made immediately after the confession for the sword, and it
was discovered in the place pointed out. It was lying within a few paces
of the scene of the murder, and it is strange that it should have
remained so long undiscovered.
The wretched man after this confession applied himself zealously to the
performance of his religious exercises, and underwent the dreadful
sentence of the law at Huntingdon on the 1st of September 1827.
WILLIAM MILLER.
EXECUTED FOR THE VIOLATION AND MURDER OF MARY ANNE LANE.
This extraordinary and most horrid case, which for a considerable time
excited a very great degree of interest in the county of Warwick, where
it occurred, and which in many respects much resembles that of Abraham
Thornton and Mary Ashford, occurred at a place named Bishop's
Itchington, near Harbury-field. The trial came on at Warwick on Friday,
August 24th, 1827, when the prisoner William Miller, who was a man
thirty-five years of age, was indicted for the wilful murder of Mary Ann
Lane, on the night of the 26th of May, by casting her into a pond at
Harbury. The material facts which were proved in evidence, were that the
prisoner was a labourer, in the service of Mr. Heath, a farmer, at
Harbury; and that the deceased had been formerly a wet-nurse in that
gentleman's family, being married to a labourer in the same employment.
On the 26th of May, Mr. Heath gave an entertainment to all the servants,
labourers, and other persons, who were then, or who had been previously
employed by him. The prisoner, the deceased, and the husband of the
latter were at the entertainment, and some conversation took place
between the two former persons with regard to the return home of the
female. At about a quarter before eight, the deceased started on her way
home, taking the accustomed path into the high-road leading towards
Bishop's Itchington, which was situated at a distance of about two
miles. The prisoner was then talking with a man named Bentley, and
remarking the departure of the woman, he said "he'd be d--d if he didn't
go home with her;" and going away, he took a short cut across the
fields, so as to intercept her in the high road. From this time nothing
was seen of him until ten o'clock at night; and then he was near his own
residence at Harbury, which was about a mile nearer to Mr. Heath's than
Bishop's Itchington, but lay a considerable distance to the left of the
road leading to that place. Mrs. Lane did not return home that night;
but the murder was not discovered until the following day, when Mr.
Abraham Pratt was passing over Harbury-heath, in company with his
brother, and he saw something black in a pond there, and an umbrella
sticking up above the surface. His brother also picked up a pair of
pattens; and then, upon their raking out the black substance which they
had seen, they found it to be the clothes, covering the murdered body of
Mary-Anne Lane. Upon their examining the spot, they observed
appearances, as if some struggling had taken place, and they also saw
marks in the clay of a man's boots, and of what seemed to be knees,
covered by corduroy trousers. The body of the deceased was removed from
the pond, and upon an examination taking place, little doubt was left,
that the unhappy woman had been violated, and then barbarously murdered.
In the course of the day, the prisoner was taken into custody by
direction of Mr. Heath, when he admitted having accompanied the deceased
as far as the gate leading to the heath; but declared that he had there
quitted her, and had returned home by the foot-path. His house was
afterwards searched, and a pair of corduroy trousers was found steeped
in a tub of water. Upon the shoes, which he wore on the previous day,
being demanded, he took them from his feet, and their soles were found
to correspond exactly with the footmarks in the neighbourhood of the
pond. The prisoner was then conveyed in custody to the New Inn, and
there a long conversation took place with regard to his family. He
repeatedly admitted that he had "done it," and expressed some anxiety to
know whether, if he pleaded guilty, he should escape transportation. On
his being conveyed to Warwick jail, he declared, that it was drink that
had instigated him to the deed. He said that on his going from Mr.
Heath's house, he met the deceased and accompanied her as far as
Harbury's Poor Piece, that he there offered some familiarities to her,
but that she was very awkward, and would not consent, on account of his
being so drunk; with that he caught hold of her, and threw her down, and
she began to make a noise. He put his hand upon her neck to prevent her
from hooting, and scratched it, and she fainted away. He was frightened
and carried her down to the pit, and threw her in. She revived and came
to the edge of the pit, but he caught hold of her and threw her in
again, falling in with her. He was up to his middle in water, and he
held her head down till she was dead, and then he came out of the pit
very much frightened. Upon this the prisoner was fully committed for
trial.
The circumstances already detailed having been proved in evidence before
the jury, a verdict of Guilty was immediately returned, and the wretched
man received sentence of death.
He was executed in pursuance of his sentence on the 27th of August,
1827, professing sincere repentance of the crime of which he had been
guilty.
WILLIAM JONES.
TRIED FOR THE MURDER OF ELIZABETH JEFFE.
A murder, equal in atrocity, and somewhat similar in its circumstances
to those of Mr. Bird and his housekeeper at Greenwich, was committed on
the night of Monday, 1st January, 1828, upon the body of a woman
seventy-five years old, named Elizabeth Jeffe, who had the care of an
unoccupied house belonging to a respectable gentleman named Lett, and
situated at No. 11, Montague-place, Russell-square.
It appears that Mr. Lett resided at Dulwich, and the house in
Montague-place, which he had formerly occupied, being to let, he had
placed the unfortunate Mrs. Jeffe in it to take care of it, and to
exhibit its rooms to any person who might be desirous of renting it. On
the evening of Monday, the 1st January, she was last seen alive by
Gardner, the pot-boy of the Gower Arms public-house, Gower-street, who
delivered a pint of beer to her, and then she was in conversation at the
door with a young man, dressed in a blue coat, and wearing a white
apron. On the following day the house remained closed contrary to
custom, and some suspicion being entertained that something serious had
occurred to cause this unusual circumstance, information was conveyed to
Mr. Justice Holroyd, who resided in the same street, whose butler, with
the porter of Mr. Robinson, an upholsterer, proceeded to the house. Some
difficulty was at first experienced in obtaining admittance; but the
back area door having been forced, the unfortunate woman was found lying
in a front room on the basement story, with her throat dreadfully cut
and quite dead. Mr. Plum, a surgeon of Great Russell-street, was
immediately sent for, and on his arrival, he proceeded to an examination
of the person of the deceased. He found that she had been dead during
several hours, and that her death had obviously been caused by the loss
of blood occasioned by the wound in her throat, which extended through
the windpipe and gullet, and the large vessels on the right side of the
neck. The handkerchief of the deceased had been thrust into the wound,
but from the appearances which presented themselves, it became obvious
that the foot and not the hand had been employed to place it in the
position in which it was found. On the left collar-bone there were some
bruises, as if produced by some person's knuckles, and upon the thighs
there were similar marks, as well as some drops of blood, but no wound
was discovered besides that in the throat, to which death could be
attributable. Upon a further inspection of the deceased's clothes, it
was discovered that her pockets had been rifled; but although the
kitchen drawers were open, and bore the bloody impress of fingers, and a
work-basket was similarly stained, there was nothing further to show
that the object of the murderer, which was evidently plunder, had been
attained. The neck-handkerchief and cap-ribbon of the wretched woman
were cut through, apparently in the effort to inflict the wound, and
independently of the opinion of Mr. Plum, that the deceased could not
have cut herself to such an extent, the fact of her death being caused
by the hand of another was clearly shown, by the absence of any
instrument with which the wound could have been inflicted, although part
of a razor-case was found lying on the floor. Upon an examination of
the house being made, it was found that the hall door was merely on the
latch, and the furniture in the parlour presented an appearance which
showed that the murderer had gone into that apartment after the death of
his victim. A publication headed "The State of the Nation" was found
there smeared with blood, and a doe-skin glove for the right-hand, on
which marks of blood were also visible, was discovered lying on the
floor.
From circumstances which came to light, the officers who were employed
to endeavour to trace out the perpetrators of this atrocious murder,
were induced to suspect that Charles Knight, the son of the deceased,
was in some measure implicated in its commission. By direction of Mr.
Halls, the magistrate of Bow-street, who throughout the whole case
exhibited the most unremitting desire to secure the ends of justice,
therefore, he was apprehended at his lodgings in Cursitor-street; but
upon his being questioned, he gave a clear and unembarrassed statement
of the manner in which he had been engaged during the night of the
murder, and inquiry having proved this to be true, he was ordered to be
discharged.
The police were now completely at a loss to fix upon any person as being
open to suspicion. The man who had been seen in conversation with the
deceased at the door of her house, however, appeared to be pointed at by
common consent, and an accident soon pointed out a person named William
Jones as the individual suspected. It was learned that he had been in
the habit of calling upon the deceased at her master's residence, and
that he was a seafaring man; but beyond these circumstances, and that he
had been living in Mitre-street, Lambeth, nothing could be learned of
him or his pursuits. On inquiry being made at his lodgings, it was
discovered that he had absconded, and the suspicion of his guilt, which
was already entertained, was greatly strengthened by this circumstance.
A reward of 10_l._ was offered for his apprehension, and by a remarkable
accident on Monday the 13th January he was taken into custody by a city
officer, on a charge of stealing a coat. He was then taken to Guildhall
office, but Salmon, the Bow-street officer, having claimed him on this
charge, he was delivered over to his custody, and by him conveyed to
Bow-street. He there most strenuously denied that he was at all
implicated in the murder, although he admitted that "he had done other
things," but he was remanded for the production of further evidence.
From subsequent inquiries, it was learned that he was the son of Mr.
Stephen Jones, a gentleman well known in the literary world as the
author of a dictionary called "Jones' Sheridan Improved," and as the
editor of a journal published in London. This gentleman, who died only a
short time before the Christmas preceding the murder, left two sons, who
possessed considerable talents, but who were too much inclined to habits
of dissipation. William Jones had gone to sea, but latterly, on his
return, being so much straitened in his circumstances as to be sometimes
in actual want, he had occasionally visited Mrs. Jeffe, who was a
kind-hearted woman, and who, from the respect which she bore his family,
had often relieved his necessities. At the time of his apprehension he
was twenty-five years of age, and was dressed in a blue coat, as
described by Gardner, the pot-boy, by whom he was seen talking to the
deceased. Upon his subsequent examinations, the material facts which
were proved against him were, that he had been living with a young
woman, named Mary Parker, who generally went by the name of Edwards, in
Wootton-street, Lambeth; but that on the 27th of December, he suddenly
removed with her to Mitre-street. During the latter part of his
residence in Wootton-street, he was in extremely bad circumstances, and
on the 31st of December, he and his paramour were entirely without food
or money. On that night he quitted Parker in Fleet-street, and appointed
to meet her at the same place at half-past twelve o'clock, and at that
hour he came to her, as she was standing near Serjeants' Inn, in a
direction from Shoe-lane. He then had money and treated her to something
to drink; and on the following morning he went out for an hour, but
returned, and now produced a considerable quantity of silver money, with
which they were enabled to redeem some clothes, which had been pawned,
and afterwards to go to the Olympic Theatre. In the course of the
ensuing week, the prisoner was observed to be anxiously endeavouring to
prevent the discovery of his new residence, by going home by circuitous
routes, and other means, and was heard to declare his apprehension that
some officers were in search of him; but the most important
circumstances proved were, first, that of the prisoner having a severe
cut on his left thumb, when he was taken into custody, which appeared to
have been recently inflicted; and secondly, that the razor-case, which
was found lying near the body of the deceased woman, had been lent to
the prisoner, on the Sunday before the murder, with a razor, by Mrs.
Williams, with whom he had formerly lodged. Upon proof of these facts,
the prisoner was fully committed for trial; but strong as the suspicion
was against him, it proved to be insufficient in the minds of the jury,
before whom the case was tried, to warrant them in returning a verdict
of guilty.