ILL-TREATMENT AND MURDER OF WIVES—SUSPECTED MURDER OF A WIFE BY STARVATION—THE BATH STARVATION CASE —MURDER OF A WIFE IN MARYEBONE—THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMTTING MAGISTRATE ARE ATTENDED BY DR. JONES AND HIS SERVANT—A WITNESS WHO KNEW NOTHNG OF GOD, AND HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE DEVIL— BUCK PROPOSES TO SEND A MISSIONARY TO THIS WITNESS' NEIGHBORHOOD—TRIAL OF THE MURDERER BEFORE THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

London, December 1st, 1853.

  DEAR MAJOR:—As early as the year 1851, my attention was called by the paper which I daily read, to the great prevalence of violence on the part of men towards women in this country, and especially to the number of murders committed by husbands upon wives. I furnish you with an extract of the editorial article to which I have referred. It contains, as you will see, a condensed statement of several cases which had then recently occurred:

"ILL-TREATMENT AND MURDER OF WIVES.

  In his recent charge to the grand jury at the opening of the Central Criminal Court, the Recorder said—'He, was sorry

  Two of the cases adverted to in the Recorder's charge have since come on for trial before Mr. Justice Wightman. In one, the prisoner was acquitted on the ground of insanity. In the case of Andrew Maclean, also, the culprit was acquitted. The report says, 'Early in the morning of August 4, the persons lodging in the next room were disturbed by the cries of the prisoner's children, and their calling out, 'Oh, father, let mother down.' They got up in consequence, and went into the prisoner's room, where they found his wife hanging by the neck from the cupboard, and the prisoner was sitting upon the bed. The body of the unfortunate woman was quite suspended, and she was nearly black in the face. Upon the prisoner being told that he was a good-for-nothing villain for attempting to hang his wife, he replied that he would do it effectually the next time; and one of the witnesses answered that he would have done it effectually this time, if his wife had not been cut down. The prisoner was slightly intoxicated, it appeared, at the time of the occurrence. The prisoner, in his defence, asserted that his wife had hanged herself.'

  The wife was not called as a witness, the reason of which appears from the previous examination before the magistrate—on which occasion the unfortunate creature, either from habitual fear, or from the expectation that she would be given back into his power, exculpated the man, stating that she had spoken provokingly to him, and also that he had hanged her only in jest. Her dread of appearing against him was not surprising: for what would have been the consequence to her of having given strong evidence against him, in the event of his acquittal? But her testimony was not needed to show the state of the case, after proof of such facts as those contained

  In default of the judges, it is for the Legislature to apply vigorous measures of repression to this growing evil."—Observer, September 1st, 1851.

  I think you will discover from the exhibits which I shall make before leaving the subject, that this disease is too deeply seated in the constitution of the English people, to be remedied by those "vigorous measures of repression by the legislature" to which this writer referred.

  In the early part of the same year, some cases of wife-murder from starvation, enforced by their husbands, were reported. Can you by possibility conceive such a devilish fact? Below you will find in a succinct form some references to such cases:

"SUSPECTED MURDER OF A WIFE.

  Gloucester, Thursday.—A man named Daniel Mundy has been brought to the Gloucester county jail, under the warrant of W. J. Ellis, Esq., coroner for the county, on a charge of the wilful murder of his wife. The deceased and the prisoner lived at Wotton-under-edge, in this county, and the former had for some time past been in a delicate state of health. Her husband had been in the habit of cruelly beating and kicking her, and keeping her on a miserably short allowance of food, and while he himself lived well; bread and water was the poor woman's principal diet. The deceased died on the 24th of February last, rather suddenly, and an inquest was held on the body, as a matter of form, on the 28th, when no suspicion of foul conduct being entertained, a verdict of 'died from natural

"THE BATH STARVATION CASE.

  The husband of Harriet Sparing, who died from starvation at Bath, has been apprehended and lodged in the Bath jail, to await his trial at the ensuing assizes on the charge of wilful murder. The prisoner, on hearing that an inquest was to be held on his wife, absconded, and succeeded for some time in evading the vigilance of the police. It appears that he went to Bristol, and for some days lodged with Mr. Bence, a publican, under the name of Edward Woodman, but was very reserved, and kept himself remarkably quiet. He then enlisted in the thirtieth Regiment of the line, and on Wednesday was sent off to Kent, with other recruits. Mr. Bence having subsequently seen a description of Sparing in the Hue and Cry, suspected his late lodger to be the man, and immediately gave information to the chief of the Bath police. An officer, accompanied by Mr. Bence, was despatched in search of the prisoner, whom they found enjoying his dinner in Walmer Barracks Kent, but on seeing the officer he became much frightened

  I perceive that in the first of the two cases above mentioned, personal violence was resorted to, and might have been in part the cause of death. Do you not feel it a mortification, that you should belong to a common humanity with the atrocious scoundrel who could so treat that helpless and forlorn sufferer? And are you not thankful that you are not the countryman of the cowardly miscreant? Observe, if you please, the matter-of-fact way with which the witnesses deposed that the prisoner beat his wife only "in common with other husbands!" It was truly not without reason that the editor whom I have quoted above, declared that in this country "the vow to protect confers a license to kill."

  On Tuesday, the 11th day of November, 1851, I left my lodgings for the purpose of visiting the Royal Botanic Gardens, in the Regent's Park, taking my servant along with me. As we were passing in the vicinity of the Marylebone police-station, our attention was drawn to a vehicle in which a prisoner was being placed, and which was surrounded by a noisy crowd of men, women, and children. We soon learned that the accused was charged with having murdered his wife, and was about to be taken before a magistrate for examination; and that the excitement which we observed grew out of the strong indignation which the circumstances of his case created. The mob were uttering terrible denunciations of the prisoner, and their fury rather surprised me (knowing, as I now did, how common wife-murder was in the country, and how much tolerated), and I could only attribute this result to the stimulus which was imparted by the circulation of petticoats among them pretty freely, whose owners were very ardent in their cries for vengeance. Lynch law was also threatened; but there seemed to be no spirit present daring enough to take the lead in a demonstration of that kind, and the police took very proper measures for the prevention of any such attempt. We joined ourselves to the crowd which accompanied the cab in which the pri-

  I send you a report of the case, taken from a newspaper, published shortly after.

"MURDER IN MARYLEBONE.

  On Tuesday, Thomas Bare, of 33 North street, Manchester square, aged fifty, a pipemaker, was charged before Mr. Broughton with the wilful murder of his wife, Louisa Bare. The circumstances detailed exhibited features of peculiar atrocity, the deceased having received sixteen stabs in different parts of her body with a sharp-pointed file. At an early hour in the morning the rumor of the event caused crowds to collect around the Marylebone station house, where the prisoner was confined, and the numbers increased to such an extent that several constables were required to keep the thoroughfare clear. In consequence of the extraordinary excitement prevailing, the prisoner was conveyed in a cab, in which were Inspector Jackson, and two other officers. Whilst getting into the vehicle he was hissed and yelled at by the mob, and the utmost efforts of the police were necessary to protect him from summary vengeance. Hundreds followed the cab to the court, vociferating that 'there was a murderer in it,' and, on arriving at the court, to avoid the effects of the indignant feeling, the prisoner was hurried through the passage, and closely watched by two officers, prior to the case being called on. At two o'clock he took his stand in the felon's dock, the court being then crowded to excess. He is of sallow complexion, and was dressed in a black coat, waistcoat, and drab trowsers. He betrayed no emotion, and stood erect while the charge was stated to him by the magistrate. The first witness called was—

  George Nott, a furnishing undertaker, of No. 23 Cornwall road, Lambeth. He said: Deceased was my sister. She married the prisoner about twelve or fifteen years ago. They have two children living. The deceased frequently complained to me of her husband's ill-treatment. I last saw her alive about a month ago, in Warner street, Clerkenwell, where she then lived. Between ten and eleven o'clock yesterday morning, Inspector Jackson sent for me, and I went to her room in 33 North street, where I found her dead, lying upon the floor. She. had several punctures in the face, from some very sharp instrument. She was about forty years old.

  Mr. Broughton (to the prisoner): Do you wish to put questions to this witness?—Prisoner: No, I don't seem to care much about it, but I'll ask you this, did she ever complain to you in my presence of any ill-usage on my part? Witness: No, but she has often complained to me in your absence, and has said that you were addicted to drinking and neglecting vour home.—Mr. Broughton: Where are her two children? Witness. I do not know.—Inspector Jackson: One, the daughter, is outside. She is, I am sorry to say, upon the streets.—Prisoner to witness: How long is it since your sister first complained of my bad behavior? Witness: Ever since I have known you in London. The last time I saw her she said you were never at home till one or two in the morning.—Prisoner: And a good reason why. I generally worked till that time. Do you know Mr. Thompson, a gasfitter; and did you bury his wife? Witness: Yes; about twelve months ago.—Prisoner: How came you to do that? Witness: I was recommended to the job by my sister.—Prisoner: I do not wish to ask you any more questions.

  Edward Braston, aged seventeen, deposed that he lived with his parents in Brook's-gardens, Bagnigge Wells road.

  The magistrate questioned him as to his knowledge of the nature and obligation of an oath,and the replies which he gave evinced a most lamentable degree of ignorance. He knew not where God was, could not tell where people went to when they died, if they had lived a wicked life, nor had he ever heard of the devil.

  Mr. Broughton expressed pain and astonishment at the neglect of this boy's education, and said that his evidence could not be taken.

  Mrs. Sarah Abrahams, mother of the lad above mentioned, said: I am a widow, and the lad is my son by a former husband. A woman named Hands and another woman lodged four nights at my place, and both Ieft on Friday fortnight. My son carried some boxes away. On Monday last, the prisoner at the bar came to me, and asked if I had a little woman lodging up stairs? He could not tell her name, but said his wife was with her. I said, 'Yes, there were two.' He exclaimed, 'Then that's my wife, and the boxes are mine; she took them away from me, and they are up stairs in your room.' He asked to go up stairs to see them, but I said he could not, as Mrs. Hands had gone off with all the things on Friday night. The prisoner then went away, and soon after returned with a woman, who said that the prisoner's wife had behaved very ill

  Prisoner: Did you ever see Mrs. Hands and my wife drink together?—Witness; No.

  Prisoner: At what time did they generally come home?—Witness: I never knew them to stop out late.

  George Lanning, landlord of No. 33 North street, where the deceased had lodged, said: That at half-past seven on Saturday night last, a lad called on him and asked for the two females for whom he had brought the boxes a fortnight before. They were not then at home, and the boy left. At eight o'clock the prisoner came and asked was Mrs. Bare there? Not knowing her by that name I said that she did not lodge there, and in telling the names of my lodgers I mentioned that of 'Miss Nott,' and he said, 'That's she; that's my wife; that was her maiden name.' He was very violent, and threatened to break open the door unless I gave up the boxes. I said that would not be a legal proceeding, and asked him to sit down in the parlor, which he did. I said that Miss Nott (his wife) would be sure to be in by nine o'clock, as she was so very regular. After conversing for an hour and a half she came in, and walked through the passage, and I said, 'That's the good lady you came for.' The door being open he could see her as she passed, and I gave him a candle and he followed her up stairs. I left the boy in the parlor, and went to seek a policeman to guard against any disturbance. In half an hour I returned, and found the deceased lying on the floor, upon which was a great quantity of blood. My wife was bathing her face with water. A box lay on the pavement outside, and I took it into the house. The policeman ran for a medical man, who speedily arrived.

  Prisoner: Did not I tell you what sort of characters you

  Prisoner: You, sir, seem to be very warm on the subject. I have no more questions to ask you.

  Mrs. Hands, deceased's fellow-lodger, was called, but was so affected by the awful occurrence, that she was unable to undergo examination.

  Rebecca Lanning, the landlady, said that when the two women came to lodge at her house, one represented herself as a single woman, and the other as a widow. They took the apartments on Friday fortnight, when the boy brought the boxes there. On last Saturday the boy called to inquire for them, when they were not at home, and the prisoner afterwards came. He was much excited, and very noisy. She told him to be quiet, as there were other lodgers in the house, and he, at her request, went into the parlor. After his wife came, the prisoner went up stairs, and I heard some loud talking. The prisoner called up the boy, who was in the parlor. The boy went up, and immediately I heard the poor woman screech most awfully, and cry out, 'Oh you're murdering me;' the boy came down first with one box, and then with the other. The screeching lasted about three minutes. The prisoner came down after the boy, and tried to open the front door, but could not, and I opened it for him. I saw blood on the back of his hand. While he was in the room I heard a noise like the throwing down of a chair. After he left, the 'screeching' ceased, and I ran up stairs into the room and found a chair lying across the fender. The deceased was lying upon it, with her hand up to her face. She could not speak. Her bonnet and cap were off, and her hair, which was hanging over her neck, was smeared with blood. She breathed; but when the doctor arrived shortly afterwards, she was dead. I saw a great deal of blood upon her, and in the apartment.

  Other lodgers gave evidence corroborative of the preceding, and one of them said she saw the prisoner beating his wife, and begged of him, for God's sake, to desist from ill-treating her. The boy was in the room while he (prisoner)

  It was further proved that the prisoner was apprehended at the Bedford Arms, South street, near North street, where he had a glass of gin at the bar. He was the worse for liquor, but not drunk. He was conveyed to the station by Gott, 338 D, and on the way thither he said that his wife had taken a chisel or something of that sort to strike him-with, and that he snatched it from her hand, and 'gave her the contents.' His right hand was covered with blood, and upon his chin were also spots, as if blood had spurted out upon it. He inquired frequently how his wife was, and on being told that she was dead, he exclaimed, 'Christ Almighty I who'd have thought I'd the heart to do it? I have a daughter on the town, and a little boy in bed at a beer-shop. He little thinks that I have killed his mother, and I wish I was going to be hung this very moment.'

  Church, 129 D, produced a triangular saw file about six inches long, very sharp at each end, and it appeared to have been recently ground and pointed. There were on it marks of blood. The implement was found between the bars of the grate, and the handle was broken in two, and picked up in different parts of the room. The portions of the handle had also blood on them.

  Mr. Dickenson, surgeon, 15 Charles street, Manchester square, deposed that he was called in, and found the furniture and other things in the room in great disorder. The woman was lying upon the floor, to all appearances dead, and blood was flowing from various wounds. Witness described the wounds, which were sixteen in number, and they had been inflicted upon various parts of her person. One of them was on the left side of the chest, over the second rib, which was fractured about an inch and a half from the breast-bone; and on tracing that wound, upon making a post mortem examination, he found that it had penetrated two important blood-vessels to the covering of the heart. The wound alluded to was of itself sufficient to cause death. The wounds were all of a triangular shape, and the file produced was just the kind of instrument with which the fatal injury might have been inflicted.

  The prisoner, when asked had he anything to say I replied, 'Nothing.' He was then removed, and conveyed to the House of Detention. The proceedings did not terminate till six o'clock."—Observer, November 17th. 1851.

  When the case had terminated, and we had left the room, I said to my servant, "Buck, what do you think of that Bagnigge Wells lad who was called as a witness, and who, though seventeen years old, knew nothing of God, and had never heard of the devil?"

  Buck. "I was never so 'stonished, Marster, in all my born days. Ef I live to git home, I'll git up a surscription 'mong the niggers to send a mishunnary to them poor Bag-in-the-wells people—a raal Methodist mishunnary, Marster—some o' them shoutin' Bonarges fellers, as Mars Joe calls 'um; for hit'll take sich a preacher, Marster, to maul the grace o' God into their ignorant souls. None o' them nice smooth pairsons, with their frocks on——"

  Myself. "Gowns, you mean, Buck."

  Buck. "Well, 'pears like hit's pretty much the same thing, Marster—leastwise they aint coats and breeches, like our preachers wars. But, as I was a sayin', Marster, none o' them nice gent'l'men will do, no way you can fix it. They aint gwine to put themselves to no trouble for no sich people; an ef they did, p'raps the people wouldn't onderstand 'um.^* Ef we could only git Pairson Duncan, now, or Mars George Pearce, to come over here, sir, they 'ud soon larn 'um who God is; and then they 'ud run the devil out of 'um, sartain and sure."

  Myself. "I really do think they need some such instruction, Buck. And I confess myself greatly surprised at finding such specimens of a low civilization in the metropolis of Great Britain."

  Buck. "After sich doins as we've jest been hearin about, Marster, 'mong these people, I don't know that we ought to be sprised that that boy didn't know nothin 'bout God—but hit raaly do seem sorter strange, sir, that he shouldn't know nothin 'bout the devil, don't it? Howhever, they say hit's a wise child that knows hit's father, an I spose he aint wise."

  I could not but smile at Buck's conceit; but, notwithstanding his fun, I found that he was graver than was usual with him.

  "Marster," said he, "I couldn't help feelin sorry for that poor man. He desarves to be hung, I spose; bat I couldn't help to do it, nohow."

  Myself. "Why what is the reason? It was surely one of the most wicked and revolting murders of which I have ever heard any account—the murder of a woman, the man's weak, unhappy wife—in such a savage way, too!"

  Buck. "Well, maybe hit was, Marster; maybe hit was. I don't say it warn't. But when they told us 'bout what he said consarnin that poor little boy in bed in a beer-shop, and 'bout his darter, I couldn't help thinking 'bout little Billy, an my other chil'n at home, Marster; an that, but for the goodness of God, they mought a been as bad off as them poor chil'n, sir; an I sorter growed sorry for the man, sir; though I know very well his wife warn't to blame for his misry, and he no business to kill her for it. But, poor feller! I reckon he was so, onhappy he didn't care much what he done, nor what come of him."

  I saw at once, Major, that the mention of that poor "little boy in bed in a beer-shop" was the "touch of Nature" which had asserted the kindred of that man of blood even to my kind-hearted slave, and had enlisted his sympathies, The truth is, the whole evidence, and all the circumstances of this case, presented a picture as touching as it was wicked and shocking—a picture which serves as another. illustration of the extent to which social profligacy prevails among the English people. Group for a moment, if you please, in one "night scene," that wretched mother, dying under the bloody blows of the infuriate father, whilst in the. street beneath, their famished and outcast daughter wanders in darkness and guilt, and hard by, in the hell of a drinking-shop, their infant boy sleeps, unconscious of the hell of passions which is flaming around him. And when you have done so, you will admit, that it is difficult to gaze steadily on such a scene with clear head and undimmed eyes.

  About the beginning of 1852, this man Bare was

brought to trial in the Central Criminal Court. Here is a condensed account of the trial, taken from the "Observer" of that date. The heathenish boy, Braston, in the interval, had been instructed in the obligations of an oath, and you will find his testimony in the record.

"CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—THE MURDER IN MARYLEBONE.

  On Thursday, Thomas Bare, aged 43, pipe-maker, was indicted for the wilful murder of Louisa Bare, his wife. The details of the evidence in this case have been already fully given in the Observer, in the reports of the proceedings before the police magistrates. He was well dressed, and of respectable appearance. He betrayed no emotion.

  Fanny Nott, the mother of the deceased, deposed that her daughter had been twenty years married to the prisoner, but had for some time lived separate from him. Shortly before the murder the prisoner called on witness and asked after his little boy, and where his wife lived. Witness refused to tell him, and he then said that he would be revenged, and would do something to some one, but he did not say to whom. Witness, on cross-examination, admitted that this was the first time she had made this statement.

  Sarah Abrahams, of 5 Brook's Gardens, Bagnigge-wells, repeated the evidence previously given by her.

* * * * * * * * * *

  Edward Braston, aged 18, the last witness' son, deposed to having gone on the day of the murder with the prisoner to No. 33 North street, Marylebone, where the deceased lodged. They did not get there till near seven o'clock in the evening, as the prisoner had drink at three houses on the way. The deceased was not at home when the prisoner and witness came, but the prisoner waited in the parlor, and on the deceased coming home and going up stairs, the prisoner followed her, and went into her room. Shortly after he called up witness to fetch the boxes, and the witness went up, and found the prisoner and his wife talking quietly together. The prisoner said to witness, 'Here, my lad, take this box down stairs.' Witness did so, and as he was leaving the room, he heard the deceased screaming 'murder,' and the prisoner hitting her three or four times, but witness saw no instrument. Witness put the box down in the parlor, and went up again to fetch the other box. He met the prisoner on the stairs, and he told him to fetch the other

  Sarah Beckett, who lodged in the adjoining room, deposed that she heard loud quarrelling in the deceased's room, and then screams of 'murder.' She rushed out and saw the prisoner and deceased standing by the window fighting. They both fell down together, the deceased appearing to be holding the prisoner. She did not see the prisoner use any instrument but his clenched fist. Not a word was said by either of them whilst they were fighting. Witness requested the boy to interfere, but he said he should not, as 'it served the woman jolly well right.' She saw the deceased on the ground, and the floor covered with blood.

  The witness Braston said he could not recollect having used the above expressions. From the testimony of other witnesses, it appeared that the prisoner had suspected and accused his wife of infidelity, and of frequenting low public-houses with prostitutes. On being taken into custody, and being told that his wife was dead, he said, 'Christ Almighty! who'd have thought I had the heart to do it!' It was also proved that, previous to the murder, he had purchased a file; and the surgical evidence showed that sixteen wounds had been given upon the face, trunk, back, and ribs, one of which had been broken, and the pulmonic artery severed, the wounds being triangular, as if given with a file.

  Mr. Ballantine, in defence, submitted that it was clear that the prisoner's original object was merely to obtain possession of the boxes; and that if he had intended to use violence, a file would not have been the instrument purchased for the purpose, but a knife. The evidence of the lodgers also showed that the parties had quarrelled, and that, in the midst of the altercation, he said, 'All I want is my property.'

  Several witnesses deposed to the general humane, quiet, and good conduct of the prisoner.

  The judge then summed up, and the jury retired at twenty minutes to five o'clock, and at six returned with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.

  Mr. Justice Platt immediately passed sentence. He said that, upon what grounds the jury had rested their verdict, it was not for him to inquire. It was their province to decide upon the facts; and, whatever might be the opinion of the great majority of the hearers of the evidence in this case, the court must act upon the verdict of the jury alone. Under the circumstances he should sentence the prisoner to be transported for the term of his natural life."

  You perceive that the prisoner was found guilty of manslaughter only, to the surprise of the judge and of the audience. It will equally surprise you, I do not doubt. The verdict was supposed to furnish another instance of that toleration of wife-murder to which I have referred. I am making this letter too long, and must forthwith write myself,

Respectfully, Yr. friend and cousin,

P. JONES.

TO MAJ. JONES,

Pineville, Ga., U. S. of America.