girl and the prisoner Clarke, who was an apprentice at the watch factory
of Messrs. Yale and Co. at Coventry, in the course of which he evidently
acquired considerable influence over her mind. He was observed, in the
months of February and March, in the possession of more money than
usual, including one or two golden guineas, a denomination of coin of
which the deceased's savings were supposed principally to have
consisted; and he boasted, on more than one occasion, that he had only
to go to the old man's house whenever he wanted money.
On Tuesday, the 22nd of March, the female prisoner went into a
druggist's shop, and asked for two-pennyworth of arsenic to destroy
rats. The young man in the shop told her that she could not have it
except in the presence of a witness; upon which she went away, and did
not return. She afterwards went to another shop of the same description,
and made a similar application, to which she received the like answer.
Upon which she observed, that she did not know what she was to do, as
she came from the country. She added, however, that she had a sister
residing at Coventry, and she would go and fetch her. She then left the
shop, and, when passing through Spoil-street, she met a girl named
Elizabeth Russell, who told her that she was going to the factory (Vale
and Co.'s); upon which the prisoner said, "Just come with me as far as
Messrs. Wyly's, the druggists, and I will then accompany you to the
factory." Elizabeth Russell asked her what she wanted at the druggists'?
To which she replied, that she wanted some arsenic to destroy rats. The
girl then accompanied her to the druggists', where she received the
arsenic in her presence, with a label upon the paper having the words,
"arsenic, poison," printed on it. She inquired of the shopman how she
was to use it, in order to destroy the rats; and he told her she might
mix it up with some bread, or some substance of that kind. She then left
the shop, and on going into the street she tore off the label, saying at
the same time to the other girl, "What has he stuck this on for?"
They walked as far as the factory, which they reached just as the men
were coming out of it to go to dinner, it being then about one o'clock
in the day; they here parted, and the prisoner Higgins was joined by the
prisoner Clarke, who walked with her towards her uncle's house; a
waggoner who was passing along the street shortly afterwards, observed
Clarke entering the uncle's house, and the niece the next moment closing
the door, which Clarke had left open, after him.
At two o'clock Clarke returned to his work at the factory, and remained
there until eight in the evening; about nine he was observed standing at
the entry which led from the deceased's house to a yard where there was
a certain convenience, from which the old man was seen apparently
returning. The niece was also observed standing at the entry. Whilst the
old man was in the yard, a particular kind of noise was heard, and the
place afterwards exhibited the appearance of a person having been
vomiting there.
At about one o'clock at midnight the female prisoner knocked up an old
woman named Green, who lived a few doors off, and implored her, for
God's sake, to come to her uncle, who was taken very ill. Mrs. Green
accordingly got out of bed, put on her gown, and followed her to her
uncle's. On her way, Mrs. Green was met by a man, who, when passing by
Higgins's door the moment before, heard two voices, as he thought, in
the house; but could not tell whether they were male or female voices,
or the voices of a male and female. Upon Mrs. Green going in, she found
the deceased lying upon his niece's bed, with his head resting on his
left hand, in the attitude of a man who had been vomiting. Upon going up
to him, she thought at first she heard him breathe, but found, when she
stirred him, that he was stiff. She called to him, but received no
answer. Observing some water on the floor near the bed, and knowing that
the old man had been subject to a complaint which she called the
water-swamp, she proposed going down stairs and making some tea for him.
She and the niece went down accordingly, and, while below, the latter
said, "Oh! I hear my uncle groan."
They immediately returned to the room, but on Mrs. Green again going to
the bed, she found that the old man was dead; and also concluded, from a
more particular examination of his body, that he must have been dead for
at least half an hour. The niece wept bitterly, exclaiming, "Oh my dear
uncle! my dear uncle! now he's gone, all my friends are gone!" She told
Mrs. Green that she and Edward Clarke were to have been married on
Easter Monday, and that had it not been for her poor uncle's death, they
were all to have had a jovial day of it. She said that they must still
be married, however, on that day, as she was in the family way; that she
would put on mourning for her uncle, but put it off on the day of her
marriage, and then resume it again, it being unlucky to be married in
black. The statement of her being in the family way was untrue.
In answer to previous inquiries from Mrs. Green, she said that her uncle
had had some pea-soup for supper; that he had been taken very ill, and
gone to bed; that after she had retired to her own bed, her uncle came
into her room, and becoming very sick, she got up, and placed him on her
bed. Mrs. Green observed the bed in the deceased's room very much
tumbled, as if by a person who had been tossing from side to side in
great pain. There was also a quantity of water on the floor, with two
little lumps of bread in it, which appeared to have been discharged from
the stomach. Some other of the neighbours being called in to assist in
laying out the deceased, Mrs. Green went away.
In the course of the morning, between six and seven o'clock, another
neighbour, a Mrs. Moore, called, and, on seeing the niece, asked if it
was true that her uncle was dead? She said it was, and that she was then
going out to purchase mourning. She went out accordingly, and when she
was gone, Mrs. Moore, seeing the place in a state of confusion, set
about putting the things to rights. On going into the pantry, she
perceived a basin on the shelf about three quarters filled with
pea-soup. She took it to the window, and stirred it up with a spoon that
lay in it; upon which she perceived that it was of a whitish colour and
thick substance, different from the usual appearance of pea-soup. She
replaced it on the shelf, and then examined another basin containing a
similar quantity of pea-soup, which, however, was of the usual yellow
colour, and of the ordinary substance. This basin she also replaced on
the shelf, and said nothing until the niece returned, when she asked her
the cause of the different appearances of the two soups; to which the
latter replied, that she had thickened one with flour, and the other
with oatmeal.
Mrs. Moore's suspicions having been excited, she gave the soup into the
charge of a carpenter who had come to measure for the coffin, who locked
it up in the room in which the corpse lay. A surgeon was then sent for,
who opened the body, and found the coat of the stomach extremely
vascular and red. He also found within the stomach a pint and a half of
fluid, which he put into a bottle, and which he sent, together with the
basins of soup, in a basket, to his surgery, for the purpose of having
them analysed. The fluid taken from the stomach was afterwards submitted
to several chemical tests, in the presence of four or five professional
gentlemen, all of which led to the same result--namely, that it was
impregnated with arsenic. The pea-soup was not analysed, but was given
to a dog, which immediately threw it off its stomach, and consequently
survived it.
When the female prisoner was taken into custody by an officer named
Gardiner, she was questioned on the subject by him, in a manner which
was severely reprehended by the learned judge, and excited a feeling of
strong indignation in the minds of every person in court, including the
learned counsel on both sides. She told him, in reply to his questions,
first that she had not purchased any arsenic; and on his saying that
Elizabeth Russel could prove that she had, she admitted it, but said
that she had only used it to destroy rats, and that one lay dead under a
particular chair. A dead mouse was found under that chair; but on its
being opened, there was no appearance of inflammation in the stomach,
which there must have been had it died from having swallowed arsenic.
She also denied having any money in her possession; but on being
searched, a box was found in one of her pockets, containing five
guineas; another box contained three; and in a purse were one guinea, a
half-guinea, and a seven-shilling piece. Gardiner, afterwards, when
conveying her to prison through the street, no other person being
present, said to her, "How could you be over-persuaded to do such a
thing?" to which the unfortunate girl replied, that she had not been
persuaded by any person, she had done it herself. She said she had put
two tea-spoonfuls of arsenic into a basin, and poured the soup over it,
and then gave it to her uncle.
There were no circumstances in the case, as against Clarke, to lead to a
positive conclusion that he had been aware of the poison having been put
into the soup, or of its having been purchased at all.
When called on for his defence, he put in a written address, in which he
principally dwelt upon the vagueness of the evidence adduced against
him, and asserted his innocence of the crime with which he stood
charged. The female prisoner merely said she was innocent, and left the
rest to her counsel. Several witnesses gave Clarke a good character; but
none appeared for Higgins.
The learned judge summed up the case to the jury with the most anxious
care and minuteness.
The jury, after deliberating for about five or six minutes, returned a
verdict acquitting Edward Clarke, but finding Mary Anne Higgins Guilty.
The learned judge then, in the usual form, sentenced the wretched girl
to be executed at Coventry, on Thursday, and her body to be dissected.
Throughout the whole of the trial the unhappy girl appeared to be
sensibly affected by the position in which she was placed; and during
the period occupied by the learned judge in passing sentence, she wept
bitterly. Upon being removed from the bar, her lamentations were of the
most piteous description, and she appeared deeply to deplore the death
of her uncle, and the crime of which she had been guilty.
The wretched convict, during the short period intervening between her
trial and execution, conducted herself in a becoming manner, and made no
efforts to excuse her unnatural conduct. She declined, however, to make
any statement accounting for the dreadful deed; but there can be little
doubt that her object was to prevent her uncle's discovery of the
robberies, of which it was perfectly evident she had been guilty, upon
him. At the place of execution she appeared to be sincerely repentant,
and prayed with great devotion.
She was executed at Coventry, on the 11th of August, 1831.
* * * * *
It has been frequently observed with great truth, that secret poisoning
is one of the worst of crimes; because it is an offence against which
even the most wary can provide no safeguard. In the case the particulars
of which we have now laid before our readers, one is at a loss to
account for the crime of which the wretched convict was guilty; and no
less must we be surprised at the means taken by the unhappy girl to
secure her object, than at the circumstance of a person in her position,
with regard to her victim, engaging in so fearful a transaction.
Poisoning is universally looked upon as a crime of peculiar atrocity;
but the following anecdote will exhibit the diminution of the frequency
of its occurrence in recent years.
In the year 1670, the Marchioness of Brinvilliers, a lady of noble
family, resided in Paris. An officer named St. Croix, of good family but
ruined reputation, having formed an intrigue with her, her friends
procured his confinement in the Bastille, where he acquired from some
Italians the art of compounding poison. On his liberation he hastened to
the marchioness, and imparted to her his acquisition, as a means of
revenging themselves, and of bettering their ruined fortunes. She
eagerly entered into his views, and carried on the horrid trade with a
diabolical activity. Her husband, father, brothers, and sister quickly
perished. She is said to have disguised herself as a nun, and
distributed poisoned biscuits to the poor, in order to try the efficacy
of her poisons. Her career was cut short by an accident. A glass mask
which St. Croix wore while preparing his poisons fell off, and he was
found suffocated in his laboratory. A casket was also found there, which
was directed to Madame Brinvilliers, but opened by the police. It
contained poisons sufficient to destroy a community, labelled
differently, according to their effects, as ascertained by experiments
on animals. St. Croix's servant was seized, tortured, and confessed the
crimes of his employers, in which he had aided. The marchioness escaped,
but at last was captured; and having undergone the torture with
inflexible courage, was beheaded. On her person was found a full
confession and detail of her horrible crimes. This punishment did not
put a stop to the crime of poisoning in France, which was very common
between the years 1670 and 1680.
EDWARD HOGSDEN.
EXECUTED FOR RAPE.
Human nature itself must be startled at the horrible crime for the
commission of which this wretch was executed. The depravity of mankind
appears in him to have met with one of its fittest and most atrocious
representatives.
He was indicted at the Croydon Assizes, on Wednesday the 10th of August,
1831, for a rape upon Harriet Hogsden, his own daughter, a girl only
seventeen years of age.
The evidence of the prosecutrix even placed the transaction in a blacker
light than that in which it had previously stood. The prisoner and his
family, consisting of his wife, the witness, and a younger sister,
resided on Ashtead Common, in the county of Surrey; and so many of them
as were able to work had employment on the farm of Mr. Haggett, in the
neighbourhood. On the 27th of July, the prisoner's wife and youngest
daughter went at four o'clock in the morning to work, the prisoner
having been out all night. At six o'clock the prisoner came home and
found the prosecutrix alone in the house. He then committed the fearful
crime which was alleged against him, under circumstances of an appalling
nature, which it would be impossible to repeat. The girl implored him to
desist, and used every exertion in her power to repel his vile attack,
but in vain. The presence of an infant--the offspring, as the girl
swore, of a former forced connexion with her unnatural parent--had no
effect in inducing him to desist, but only brought down oaths of
vengeance if she dared to say one word of what occurred. The girl
immediately sent for her mother and informed her of the dreadful scene
which had been enacted; and the prisoner was, in consequence, taken into
custody.
The prisoner, in his defence, strove to elicit from the girl that she
had had an acquaintance with a packman, who was the father of her child,
and that he had found him in bed with her on the morning in question,
but without effect; the girl swore that she had never been intimate with
any man except her father!
The wretched man then adopted a new line of defence, declaring that the
girl was not his daughter; but this too failed, and at length the
villain, driven from his second standing-place, asserted boldly that his
daughter had been a consenting party to all that had occurred.
In a written defence which he put in, he endeavoured to persuade the
jury that the charge had been trumped up by his wife and the
prosecutrix, because they wanted to get rid of him; and urged that it
was unlikely that he should be guilty of such a crime at such a period,
when he had been up all night watching his mother's grave, where her
remains had only been interred the day before; a fact which on inquiry
turned out to be true.
The jury unhesitatingly returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner
was immediately sentenced to be executed; a sentence which was carried
out on Monday, the 21st of August, 1831; when the miserable convict
admitted the justice of his punishment.
We shall abstain from adding any further account of the life of this
diabolical ruffian, exhibiting as its circumstances do a degree of
sinfulness and crime not exceeded by any of those bloodthirsty murderers
whose offences it is our duty to describe.
At his execution, as during his trial, he exhibited the most callous
indifference.
JOHN AMY BIRD BELL.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
Our readers will be astonished when they learn that this wretched
malefactor, at the time of his execution, had attained the age of
fourteen years only; but the circumstances of the bloody tragedy in
which he was the chief actor show him to have been fully deserving the
fate which befel him.
He was indicted at the Maidstone assizes on Friday, the 29th of July,
1831, for the wilful murder of Richard F. Taylor, a boy aged only
thirteen years, in a wood in the parish of Chatham.
Few cases had ever produced a greater degree of interest in the county
of Kent than that of this wretched culprit, and his still more
unfortunate victim.
From the evidence it appeared that Taylor was the son of a poor man of
the same name, a tallow-chandler, living at Stroud. On Friday, March the
4th, the little fellow, who was described as having possessed peculiar
intelligence and an amiable disposition, was despatched to Aylesford to
receive a sum of 9_s_., the amount of a weekly parish allowance to his
father. He was dressed at the time in a "south-wester," with a belcher
handkerchief round his neck, blue jacket and waistcoat, brown trousers,
and shoes and stockings; and his father, at his request, lent him a
knife, with which he expressed his intention to cut a bow and arrow on
his way home. The boy arrived safely at Aylesford, when Mr. Cutbath, the
relieving officer of the parish, gave him the usual amount of 9_s_. The
boy had before been instructed by his father as to the mode of carrying
the money, and the little fellow had shown him how completely and how
securely he could conceal it, by putting it into a little bag, which he
could carry in the palm of his hand inside a mitten which he wore; and
on this occasion he was observed to place the silver in the customary
manner in his hand. He usually reached home at about three o'clock, but
on this afternoon he did not return. As night advanced his father became
alarmed at his absence; and on the next morning he determined to go
himself to Aylesford, for the purpose of making inquiries for him. The
fact of his having received the money was ascertained; but all search
for him proved unavailing, and his parents were left in a most painful
state of doubt as to the cause of his sudden disappearance.
Several weeks passed without any circumstance being disclosed at all
calculated to calm their apprehensions; and it was not until the 11th of
May that the real fact of the murder of the unhappy boy was discovered.
On that day a man named Izzard was passing through a bye-path in a wood
situated at a distance of about two miles from Rochester, and about
thirty rods from the high road,--a spot which lay in the road from
Stroud to Aylesford,--when he found the body of the boy lying in a
ditch. The mitten was cut from his left hand, and his clothes were
disarranged as if in a scuffle; and although the body was so much
decomposed as to prevent his being able to discover by what means his
death had been produced, the remains of blood upon his shirt, coat, and
neckerchief left no doubt of the dreadful death which he had suffered.
Information of the discovery was at once conveyed to the parents of the
boy, who lost no time in proceeding to the spot; and a surgical
examination of the body took place on the ensuing day. Mr. Seaton, a
surgeon, conducted this inquiry; and the result was an expression of his
undoubted opinion that the deceased had died of a wound which had been
inflicted in his throat with a sharp-pointed instrument, the mark of
which was still visible, notwithstanding the extreme decomposition of
the surrounding flesh, which could not have been inflicted by the
deceased himself, unless by the exercise of extraordinary determination
and nerve.
A diligent search was immediately instituted for the purpose of
endeavouring to find the instrument with which this terrible murder had
been committed, and in a short time a common white horn-handled knife
was found, corroded with rust, which had every appearance of being the
weapon which had been used by the murderer. The discovery of this
weapon afforded some clue to the parties implicated in the transaction;
and a man named Bell, and his two sons, John Amy Bird Bell, and James
Bell, respectively of the ages of fourteen and eleven years, were taken
into custody. These persons lived in the poor-house, nearly adjoining
the spot where the murder was committed; and the information obtained by
the constable, by which the knife which had been found was discovered to
have belonged to the boy John Bell, afforded conclusive testimony of one
at least of them having been concerned in the foul deed.
An investigation into the circumstances of the murder took place before
the magistrates at Rochester, the result of which was, that convincing
proof was obtained of the implication of the two boys. During this
inquiry it became necessary that the body of the deceased should be
exhumed, for it had been buried immediately after it had been discovered
and the coroner's jury had sat, in order that the person of the boy
might be searched--an operation which had been previously most
unaccountably omitted. At the time of this examination being made, the
two younger prisoners were taken to the grave-yard, for the purpose of
observing the effect of the proceeding upon them. The elder boy, John,
maintained throughout a sullen silence; but his brother James, on being
desired to enter the grave and search the pockets of the clothes of the
deceased, which had been buried on his person, cheerfully complied, and
brought forth the knife which the father of the unhappy lad had lent him
on his setting out for Aylesford. This was the only article found upon
him, and robbery, therefore, it was at once seen, had been the object of
his murderer.
The prisoners after this underwent another examination before the
magistrates; and upon their being again remanded, the younger boy
confessed that he and his brother had committed the murder--that his
brother had waylaid the deceased in the wood, while he had remained at
its outskirts to keep watch. Upon this the evidence of the younger boy
was accepted; and the father having been discharged from custody,
although strong suspicion had been excited of his having been an
accessory after the commission of the crime, the prisoner, John Amy Bird
Bell, was committed for trial. The statement of the younger boy
exhibited a remarkable degree of depravity in the conduct of his brother
and himself. He said that they had long contemplated the murder of their
wretched victim, having learned from him the errand upon which he so
frequently travelled from Stroud to Aylesford and back; but various
circumstances had prevented the completion of their design until the 4th
of March, when it was carried out by John, who afterwards gave him 1_s_.
6_d_. as his share of the proceeds of the transaction.