from the appearances which presented themselves, it became evident that
the murder had been committed in the most savage manner. The body of the
deceased lay extended on the ground, covered only with a night-gown,
his hands being bound in front with a strong cord, and his eyes being
also bandaged with a stocking bearing marks of blood. The bed was
completely saturated with blood, and the floor presented indications of
a desperate conflict having taken place. On examining the body, several
severe wounds were found at the back of the head; the forehead was
completely dashed in by a violent blow from some heavy instrument; the
nose and both jaw-bones were broken; and the mouth was severely bruised
and mutilated; while three of the teeth of the poor old man, wrenched
from their sockets, were found lying on the carpet. The house, which
consisted of two rooms only, was in a state of great confusion. The
drawers had been forced open, and the box in which it was known the
deceased kept his money had been ransacked of its contents. In the
sitting-room the pipe of the deceased was found lying upon the table,
and beside it lay a number of books of a religious tendency exhibiting
the manner in which the old man had spent the later hours of his life.
Upon the search being continued, to ascertain the means by which ingress
had been obtained to the house, it was discovered that the outer
shutter, which was of slight materials, having been first forced open, a
pane of glass in the parlour window had been broken through, and then a
hand might have been introduced to open the door on the inside.
The circumstances which had hitherto been disclosed left but little clue
to the murderer, but some suspicion being attached to Capriani from the
delay which had taken place in the discovery of the murder by him to the
police, he was taken into custody. The examinations which were made by
the police in the course of the ensuing day or two, however,
satisfactorily proved that Capriani was in nowise implicated in the
horrid affair, and he was discharged; but soon afterwards Gould, and a
man and his wife, named John and Mary Ann Jarvis, were apprehended. The
evidence which was discovered in reference to these persons soon
demonstrated the innocence of the man Jarvis, and he was set at liberty;
and subsequently, although a close intimacy was proved to exist between
Gould and Mrs. Jarvis, it was found that no such proofs remained against
the latter as to induce a probable belief of her guilt, and she too was
discharged from custody.
Gould, in the mean time, underwent many examinations at Hatton-Garden
police-office, upon the charge of being concerned in the murder, the
utmost interest and excitement being occasioned by the mystery connected
with its committal. It would be useless to go through the history of the
investigations which took place before the magistrates, and also before
the coroner, upon this case; but there can be little doubt, that if
those functionaries had not suffered themselves to be led away by
feelings with respect to the comparative importance of their respective
offices, inconsistent with the due performance of their duties, and that
if the police had, in the ordinary language of their calling, "managed
the case well," a conviction which every one now must believe would have
been a proper one, would have secured to justice the punishment of a
most heinous offender. Such portion of the evidence which was brought
forward at these various examinations, as could legally be produced
against the prisoner, was adduced upon his trial at the Old Bailey; and
we shall proceed to describe that inquiry, and the occurrences which
subsequently took place.
The case came on to be tried before Mr. Baron Alderson, at the Central
Criminal Court, on Tuesday, the 14th of April, Mr. Chadwick Jones
appearing as counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. Chambers conducting
the defence of the prisoner. Witnesses were examined as to the facts
which have been already detailed; and other persons were produced, from
whose testimony it appeared that the prisoner for some time before the
murder had lodged in the house of a Mrs. Allen, who lived in
Pocock's-fields, near the cottage of the deceased. The most important
facts proved against him were, that previous to the murder he had
frequently declared to many of his companions that he was greatly in
want of money, and that he had suggested to one of them, a pot-boy at
the Duchess of Kent public-house in the Dover-road, that he knew an old
man who had got money, for that he had seen him flashing about a 50_l._
note; that he knew where to put his hand upon it in the drawer where it
was kept, and that it was "just like a gift" to him, and that he wished
he could get "a right one" to assist him in the robbery. Other witnesses
proved that he had expressed to them a desire to procure "a screw" and
"a darkey" (meaning a picklock key and a dark lantern), to "serve" an
old gentleman in a lonely cottage; and the concluding evidence was that
of Mr. and Mrs. Allen, his landlord and landlady, as to his conduct on
the night of the murder, and of some police-officers, who proved the
discovery of some money in the rafters of the wash-house of Allen's
cottage, corresponding in its denominations with the silver which had
been paid to Mr. Templeman by his lodgers at Somers Town.
Allen's evidence was as follows:--"I live at Wilson's Cottage, Pocock's
Fields, Islington. I know the cottage in which the deceased lived. I
have known the prisoner about twelve months; he has lodged at my house
several times, and he came to lodge there seven nights before this
occurrence took place. I remember the 16th of March; and at that time,
from circumstances that occurred, I am confident that he had no money.
On that day the prisoner went out between eight and nine o'clock without
having any breakfast. He had on a pair of shoes which I sold him, and
they had nails in them. The prisoner wore them constantly. He returned
home about three o'clock in the morning, and he immediately went into
his room. My wife said to him, 'Richard, is it early, or late?' and he
replied, 'It is early.' The prisoner got up between eight and nine
o'clock the next morning, and came into my sitting-room, and passed
through into the wash-house, which leads to the privy. He staid out from
five-and-twenty minutes to half-an-hour, when he returned into the house
and went out at the front door. I did not observe anything unusual in
his appearance. The prisoner returned home about seven o'clock in the
evening, and in the mean time I had heard of the murder of Mr.
Templeman, and I told him of it. The prisoner said it was a shocking
thing, and he asked me if I considered Mr. Templeman could have done it
himself. I said, 'Richard, how can a man bind his own hands and eyes?'
The prisoner then appeared agitated, and said his inside was out of
order, and he went into the yard, and remained for a few minutes. My
attention had been attracted to the prisoner having a new pair of shoes
on, and I had a suspicion. I asked him about them, and he said that his
cousin had given them to him. He then asked me to get him some bacon and
beer for his supper, and I fetched it for him. He gave me a shilling to
pay for it. I asked him where he had been so late on the night before.
He said he had been at the Rainbow, and had stopped there until twelve
o'clock at night, and when he came out he met some friends, who
detained him. Before this time I had a piece of wood in my possession,
which was about a foot and a half long. The prisoner went to bed about
nine o'clock, and I bolted him in and gave information to the police. He
accounted to me for the possession of the money by saying that it had
been given to him by his relations.
Mrs. Allen's evidence was to the same effect; but she proved in
addition, that a stocking in which the money was found concealed
belonged to the prisoner.
The evidence otherwise was of a very general description, and although
many expressions of a very suspicious character were attributed to the
prisoner by the witnesses, none of them amounted to an admission by him
of his guilt. The jury, after having received the customary charge from
the learned Judge, returned a verdict of acquittal.
During the whole of the time occupied by this investigation, the avenues
of the court, as well as the court itself, were crowded to excess by
persons anxious to obtain early information as to its result. The
verdict of the jury appeared to excite considerable dissatisfaction in
the minds of many persons; and so great was the anger exhibited by a
great portion of the populace, that the prisoner deemed it prudent to
accept an offer of protection which was made to him by the sheriffs, and
to remain in the Compter prison until the popular clamour should have in
some degree subsided.
While there, a very great degree of commiseration appears to have been
unjustly excited in his behalf. Mr. Alderman Pirie, a gentleman for
whose humane feelings and intentions every one must give him the highest
praise, offered to Gould that he should quit this country, and that he
should proceed in a vessel of his own, on the point of sailing to
Sydney, to that colony; and the wretched culprit, conscious of his guilt
and of the dangerous position in which he stood, at once accepted the
offer which was so liberally held out to him. A few days sufficed to
show how far the humanity of the worthy alderman was misapplied. A man
was committed to the Compter from the Mansion-house, upon a charge of
stealing from his employers a quantity of tea, entrusted to him for
delivery. His answer to the allegations made against him was
unsatisfactory; and in the Compter he was imprisoned in the same ward in
which Gould was suffered to remain. Upon his second examination he
started a line of defence, which it was thought would afford him a
moderate chance of escape. He imputed to two men, that they had met him
in the street, and having given him a shilling to go on an errand for
them, had run off with his tea. The men whom he pointed out were
eventually taken into custody, and they proved to be two of the persons
who had given evidence upon Gould's trial, and whose false impeachment
this fellow had basely procured for the purpose of revenging himself
upon them for their having stated that which was undoubtedly true. The
two men were fortunately able satisfactorily to prove that they were
elsewhere at the time of the supposed robbery; and the other prisoner
was conveyed to Newgate to await his trial.
In the mean time, Gould, exulting in what he then supposed to be the
success of his scheme, had been removed on board the Elizabeth, the
vessel in which he was to be conveyed to Sydney, and which lay at
Gravesend. She was on the point of sailing, when the government,
hitherto supine in its exertions to secure the discovery of the
perpetrators of this most diabolical murder offered a reward of 200_l._
for their apprehension. An idea was entertained that for the reward
Gould would disclose all he knew upon the subject, for that he knew
something was obvious, and Otway, a police serjeant, was despatched to
communicate with him upon the subject. A long conversation took place,
in the course of which the reward was hinted at, and Gould expressed his
willingness to open a communication, provided some portion of the booty
sufficient to satisfy him for the loss of his passage were guaranteed to
him; but on the next day, he was surprised at finding that he had again
got into the custody of the police, a warrant having been executed upon
him, in which he was charged with being a party to the robbery which had
been committed in the house of Mr. Templeman, on the night of the
murder.
He was carried to London loudly complaining of the breach of good faith
on the part of serjeant Otway, and on being conveyed to Bow-street, he
repeatedly expressed his willingness to disclose all he knew upon his
being liberated. This condition, however, was refused to be acceded to,
and in the hope of obtaining the reward, on the 11th of May he made a
statement to the following effect.
He said, that "the robbery of Mr. Templeman's house had been talked over
for some time, by himself, Jarvis, and his wife, but it was not finally
agreed upon until the morning before that on which it took place. He was
then at Jarvis' house but he did no remain long, as Jarvis expected his
brother, but before he went away, Jarvis went into the garden and got a
piece of wood used as a dibber, and bored a hole in the handle and
passed a piece of string through it so as to hang it on his arm. He then
went to the Rainbow public-house and got drunk and went to bed at his
lodgings. He was to have gone to Jarvis' on the next morning, but he lay
in bed so late that Mrs. Jarvis came to fetch him. Jarvis had given her
a message how it was to be done, and he (Gould) was not to go near the
place until after the public-houses were closed. Mrs. Jarvis told him
that she had prepared breakfast and that there was no fear of being
noticed, but he went again to the Rainbow, and remained there until
twelve o'clock at night. At that hour he went to Jarvis' house, and in a
few minutes they went to Mr. Templeman's together, Mrs. Jarvis standing
at the door of her own cottage to give an alarm in case of necessity. He
(Gould) removed a piece of paper which was pasted over the window, and
introducing his hand opened the door, and then he and Jarvis went in. He
broke open a box which was in the sitting-room, and found some silver,
and Jarvis went into the bed-room. Jarvis now suggested, that as the
notes had not been found they must be under the old man's head, and that
they might quiet him and fasten him. They had brought a cord with them,
and Jarvis directly struck the old man with the dibber. He jumped out of
bed as if to resist their attack, but the blows being repeated he was
overpowered and his hands tied. They then continued their search for the
notes, and they were found in the drawer in the box from which they had
taken the silver, but upon their looking at them they found that they
were useless, for they were barbers' notes upon 'the bank of fashion.'
The deceased by this time had in some degree recovered, and exclaimed 'I
know you,' upon which Jarvis declared, that he had rather finish him
than be found out, and went into the bed-room. He (Gould) ran out of the
house and was presently followed by Jarvis, and they went together to
the house of the latter. Mrs. Jarvis was still standing on the look-out.
He wanted to divide the money, but Jarvis said 'No, you had better
plant (conceal) it, for the cottages here will all be frisked
(searched).' He then took the dibber away and threw it into the New
River, and he also threw the dark lantern which they had used into a
pond in Pocock's Fields. Before he went away he agreed to meet Mrs.
Jarvis the next morning at the Three Goats' Heads, Wandsworth-road, and
when he quitted them he said that he would then show himself as quickly
as he could. He went accordingly to a coffee-shop near the Angel, at
Islington, and remained there for an hour and half, and when he returned
home it was two o'clock. He went to bed, and on the next morning he
placed all the money with the exception of 9_s._ in an old stocking, and
put it where it had been found. He then proceeded to the Three Goats'
Heads, and soon after he was joined by Mrs. Jarvis, who had her child
with her. They went to Lambeth together, and he bought a pair of boots
for 7_s._ 6_d._, and he sold his old ones in the New Cut. They
subsequently went towards home, Mrs. Jarvis on quitting him desiring him
not to go near her cottage that night, as there was a rare 'stink' about
it."
The villany and falsehood of this declaration, except as regarded his
own guilt, was soon clearly proved, for on the very same day on which it
was made it was contradicted by the prisoner, but while as regarded Mr.
and Mrs. Jarvis it was distinctly shown to be false, the prisoner had
told so much of the truth as to enable the police to trace out so many
new proofs as to leave the most conclusive evidence against him.
He had already been acquitted of the murder, and it was impossible that
he should be tried upon any fresh indictment upon that charge; but it
still remained open to the friends of the deceased to prefer against him
a charge of burglary, subjecting him to a penalty of transportation for
life. The statement of facts with regard to the dark lantern, and the
purchase of the pair of shoes made by the prisoner, was plainly
corroborated by investigation; and while he had unsuccessfully
endeavoured to procure the new implication of Jarvis in the murder, he
had unwittingly afforded evidence that he had himself committed the
burglary with which he now stood accused.
Upon this latter charge he was indicted at the sessions of the Central
Criminal Court, on the 22nd of June, and the same evidence which had
been before adduced having been again brought forward, together with
proof of those additional facts admitted in his own confession, he was
found "Guilty."
Mr. Baron Parke, in addressing the prisoner, declared that there could
be no possible doubt that he had been guilty of the murder of the
unhappy deceased, and that he was justly brought to punishment. He
sentenced him to be transported for life.
The prisoner, during his confinement in Newgate upon this new charge,
made a most desperate attempt to escape, in company with a
fellow-prisoner; but their schemes being discovered by the ever-watchful
and most excellent governor of the jail, Mr. Cope, and frustrated, he
became much impressed with the dreadful situation in which he had placed
himself. At his trial he conducted himself with much firmness,
cross-examining the witnesses with considerable tact--and subsequently
addressing the jury and court upon the case, with boldness and effect;
but upon his hearing the verdict of "Guilty," which was returned, he
lost his presence of mind, and became deeply agitated. During the period
occupied by the learned judge in passing sentence, he recovered his
self-possession, and at the conclusion of the address, he skipped away
from the bar with great alacrity.
The terms of his sentence of transportation were subsequently carried
out; but the prisoner was not removed from this country without having
made a fresh effort to secure his escape.
FRANÇOIS BENJAMIN COURVOISIER.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.
For a considerable number of years scarcely any circumstance occurred in
the metropolis which created a greater degree of consternation and
interest than the tragical event which it now becomes our duty to
record. At an early hour on the morning of Wednesday the 6th of May,
1840, Lord William Russell, an aged and most esteemed member of the
illustrious house of Bedford, was discovered to have been barbarously
murdered in his bed, at his house No. 14, Norfolk-street, Park-lane. The
noble deceased was the posthumous child of Francis, Marquis of
Tavistock, eldest son of the fourth Duke of Bedford, by Lady Elizabeth
Keppel, daughter of the second Earl of Albemarle. He was the third and
youngest brother of the two late Dukes of Bedford, and uncle of the
existing duke, who was the seventh of the family who had succeeded to
the title. He was uncle also to the noble and highly talented Lord John
Russell, who at the time of this most melancholy catastrophe held the
office of Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs. By his marriage with
Lady Charlotte Villiers, eldest daughter of the fourth Earl of Jersey,
his lordship had seven children, several of whom were still alive and
were married into other noble families; but at the time of his death he
was a widower, his wife having died in the year 1806. His lordship
having been born in August, 1767, was consequently in the seventy-third
year of his age.
Allied as the noble lord was to so many of the families of the nobility,
the horrible event of his murder, it may be presumed, created the most
extraordinary degree of alarm; and inquiries the most eager and the most
scrutinizing were immediately set on foot, with a view to the discovery
of the person by whose hand the dreadful deed had been committed. The
result of the preliminary investigations which took place, tended to fix
strong suspicion upon the valet of the unfortunate nobleman, François
Benjamin Courvoisier, which, however, was so little supported by
positive evidence, as to leave his guilt of the crime a matter of the
greatest doubt, and it was not until the second day of his trial for the
murder, that circumstances were discovered, in a manner, which appeared
to denote the presence of the hand of the Almighty, by which his
conviction was secured.
The first discovery of the murder, as we have already said, took place
upon the morning of the 6th of May; but, in order to render what then
took place more intelligible, we shall first describe the family of his
lordship, and the proceedings of the day preceding this most diabolical
outrage. Lord William Russell resided, attended only by his servants, at
the house in Norfolk-street, Park-lane. At the age at which he had
arrived, it is not to be supposed that he was unaffected by
indisposition or weakness; but although he suffered slightly from
deafness and bodily infirmity, his health was sufficiently good to
enable him to enjoy life with comparative comfort. His family consisted
of two female servants; a housemaid, Sarah Mancer, and a cook, Mary
Hannell, besides his valet, Courvoisier, and a coachman and groom, all
of whom lived in the house, with the exception of the two latter
individuals. The house was small, and consisted of only two rooms on a
floor. On the basement story were the kitchen, and the usual offices,
and a room used by Courvoisier as a pantry. On the ground floor were two
parlours, used as dining-rooms; on the first floor were the drawing-room
and library; on the second floor were the bed-room and dressing-room of
his lordship; and in the story above were the sleeping apartments of the
servants. His lordship was a member of Brookes's Club, in St.
James's-street, and usually spent a considerable portion of the day
there; but he generally dined at home, and then having passed several
hours in reading, commonly retired to rest at about twelve o'clock. The
valet had been in his lordship's service during a period of five weeks
only; and in the course of that time had been heard by his fellow
servants to express himself in terms of dislike to his master, whom he
described as testy and dissatisfied, and to declare that if he only had
his money, he should soon return to Switzerland of which country he was
a native. Upon the 5th of May, his lordship rose at nine o'clock, and
breakfasted at the usual hour; and at about noon he went out, proposing
to go to Brookes's, in accordance with his usual habit. Before he
quitted the house, however, he called his valet, and gave him several
messages to deliver, amongst which was one to the coachman, to prepare
his carriage and to be in readiness to take him home from his club at
five o'clock. Upon Courvoisier going into the kitchen after this, he
declared his fears that he should forget some of his errands; and in
recounting them, he omitted that to the coachman. At half-past five his
lordship returned home to dinner, in a cab, and showed some
dissatisfaction at the neglect of his servant; but it does not appear
that he exhibited any such anger as could well excite a feeling of
hatred or ill will. Dinner was served at about seven o'clock; tea and
coffee were subsequently handed to his lordship, and at about nine
o'clock he retired to his library. At this time, the three house
servants only were at home. Some other persons had called in the course
of the day, but they had all left; and Courvoisier, Sarah Mancer, and
Mary Hannell, only were in the house. Hannell had been out, but upon her
return Courvoisier admitted her, and it was observed that he locked and
chained the street door after her entrance. Supper was, at about ten
o'clock, prepared in the kitchen, and some beer was fetched by
Courvoisier; but he quitted the house, and returned by way of the area,
and the gate and kitchen door were fastened by Hannell upon his
re-admission. The means of access to the house, from the street,
therefore, were closed, and the only entrance from the back, on the
basement story, was through the pantry.
At about half-past ten, the women-servants went to bed, leaving
Courvoisier to attend upon his master, and it was not until half-past
twelve o'clock that his lordship rang his bell for him to assist him in
retiring to his apartment. It was the custom of his lordship to have
his bed warmed, and it was the duty of the valet to perform this duty
for him, and then to return the warming-pan to the kitchen. The bed
appears to have been warmed as usual on this occasion; but as the
subsequent events of this dreadful night remained in mystery until after
the discovery of the murder and the conviction of its perpetrator, we
shall abstain from describing them at present, in order that they may be
laid before our readers in the words which Courvoisier himself employed
in recounting them.