Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
JOHN MORGRIDGEExecuted for murder.
* * *
We now present a dreadful instance of the effects of intoxication. This unfortunate man, who, through indulgence in this vice, met an untimely fate, was a native of Canterbury, whose ancestors had served the crown for upwards of two hundred years. He had been kettledrummer to the first troop of horse-guards for a considerable time, and would have been promoted, had it not been for the following unfortunate quarrel: — A Mr. Cope, having obtained the rank of lieutenant in the army, invited several officers to dine with him at the Dolphin Tavern, in Tower Street; and one of the parties invited Morgridge likewise to go, assuring him that he would be made welcome on the part of Mr. Cope.
When dinner was over, Cope paid the reckoning, and then, each man depositing half-a-crown, Morgridge and others adjourned to the guardroom, to which place more liquor was sent. They had not been long there before a woman of the town came in a coach, and asked for Captain Cope. Being introduced, she remained a short time, and then said, 'Who will pay for my coach?' Morgridge said 'I will'; and, having done so, he advanced to salute her; but she pushed him from her in a disdainful manner, and spoke to him in very abusive terms, which induced him to treat her with the same kind of language.
Morgridge's rudeness was resented by Cope, who took the woman's part, and a violent quarrel ensued between Cope and Morgridge, both of whom were intoxicated. This contest increased to such a degree, that they threw the bottles at each other; till at length Morgridge, inflamed with passion, drew his sword, and stabbed Cope, who instantly expired.
Morgridge, being taken into custody, was tried at the Old Bailey, July 5, 1706; but a doubt arising in the breast of the jury, whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter, they brought in a special verdict, and the affair was left to be determined by the twelve judges.
The judges having consequently met at Serjeants' Inn, the case was argued before them by counsel; when they gave a unanimous opinion that he was guilty of wilful murder, because he did not kill Cope with the weapons he was originally using, but arose from his seat, and drew his sword, which was deemed to imply a malicious intention.
Morgridge, in the interim, made his escape from the Marshalsea Prison, and went into Flanders, where he remained about two years; but, being uneasy to revisit his native country, he imprudently came back to England, and, being apprehended, received sentence of death, and suffered along with William Gregg, at Tyburn, on the 28th of April, 1708.
After conviction he was truly sensible of the crime of which he had been guilty, acknowledged the justice of his sentence, and submitted to his fate with a devout wish that his misfortune might have its proper effect, in preventing similar destruction happening to others.
This is but one instance of several that we shall have occasion to record of the fatal consequences arising from a connexion with women of abandoned characters: but for a woman of this cast, the two men who were thus sacrificed, the one to the impetuosity of passion, the other to the rigour of the law, might have lived, a credit to themselves, and an advantage to the community.
On this occasion it may not be improper to reflect on the horrid crime of seduction. The man who is guilty of seducing a modest young woman from the paths of virtue is, in some degree, an accessory to every crime she may thereafter commit.
Women in general are of natures more gentle, of dispositions more harmless, than men; yet, when the mind of a woman is once contaminated, she commonly becomes more vicious even than a man of bad character; and the amiable softness of the sex seems to be totally eradicated.
If a youth is tempted to a criminal connexion with a woman already debauched by another, let him reflect that he is but seeking to perpetuate that infamy she has acquired, and to render still baser a mind already contaminated. One would imagine that a slight degree of thought would be sufficient to restrain youth from connexions of this nature; but, unhappily, the passions are more prevalent than reason, and the connexion is made before the youth has given himself time to think of its criminality.
May the case of Morgridge be an instructive one; and may those who are tempted to a commission of the crimes we would reprobate receive a timely warning therefrom.
CHAPTER 2
COLONEL JOHN HAMILTON
Convicted of manslaughter, as a second in a duel between the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun.
* * *
No occurrence, short of a national misfortune, at this time engaged the public equal to the memorable duel between the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun; and no crime of this nature was ever committed with more sanguinary dispositions. The principals murdered each other, and Mr. Hamilton was one of the seconds.
John Hamilton, Esq. of St. Martin's in the Fields, was indicted at the sessions held at the Old Bailey on the 11th of September, 1712, for the murder of Charles Lord Mohun, Baron of Oakhampton, on the 10th of November preceding; and at the same time he was indicted for abetting Charles Lord Mohun, and George Macartney, Esq. in the murder of James Duke of Hamilton and Brandon; and having pleaded 'not guilty' to these indictments, the evidence proceeded; to give their testimony, in substance as follows: —
Rice Williams, footman to Lord Mohun, proved that his master having met the Duke of Hamilton at the chambers of a master in chancery, on Thursday the 13th of November, a misunderstanding arose between them respecting the testimony of an evidence. That when his lord came home at night, he ordered that no person should be admitted to speak with him the next morning except Mr. Macartney. That on the Saturday morning, about seven o'clock, this evidence, having some suspicion that mischief would ensue, went towards Hyde Park, and, seeing the Duke of Hamilton's coach going that way, he got over the Park-wall; but, just as he arrived at the place where the duellists were engaged, he saw both the noblemen fall, and two gentlemen near them, whom he took to be the seconds; one of whom he knew to be Mr. Macartney, and the other (but he could not swear it was the prisoner) said 'We have made a fine piece of work of it.'
The waiters at two different taverns proved that the deceased noblemen and their seconds had been at those taverns; and, from what could be collected from their behaviour, it appeared that a quarrel had taken place, and that a duel was in agitation; and some of the duke's servants and other witnesses deposed to a variety of particulars, all which tended to the same conclusion.
But the evidence who saw most of the transaction was William Morris, a groom, who deposed that, 'as he was walking his horses towards Hyde Park, he followed a hackney-coach with two gentlemen in it, whom he saw alight by the Lodge, and walk together towards the left part of the ring, where they were about a quarter of an hour, when he saw two other gentlemen come to them; that, after having saluted each other, one of them, who he was since told was the Duke of Hamilton, threw off his cloak, and one of the other two, who he now understands was Lord Mohun, his surtout coat, and all immediately drew; that the duke and lord pushed at each other but a very little while, when the duke closed, and took the lord by the collar, who fell down and groaned, and the duke fell upon him; that just as Lord Mohun was dropping, he saw him lay hold of the duke's sword, but could not tell whether the sword was at that time in his body; nor did he see any wound given after the closing, and was sure Lord Mohun did not shorten his sword. He declared he did not see the seconds fight, but they had their swords in their hands, assisting their lords.'
Paul Boussier, a surgeon, swore that, on opening the body of the Duke of Hamilton, he found a wound between the second and third ribs, which entered into the body, inclining to the right side, which could not be given but by some push from above.
Henry Amie, a surgeon, swore that he found the Duke of Hamilton had received a wound by a push, which had cut the artery and small tendon of his right arm; another very large one in his right leg; a small one in his left leg, near the instep; and a fourth in his left side, between the second and third ribs, which ran down into his body most forward, having pierced the skirt of his midriff, and gone through his caul; but that the wound in his arm caused his so speedy death; and that he might have lived two or three days with the wound in his breast, which wound could not be given but by an arm that reached over, or was above him.
He further deposed, that he also viewed the Lord Mohun's body, and found that he had a wound between the short ribs, quite through his belly, and another about three inches deep in the upper part of his thigh; a large wound, about four inches wide, in his groin, a little higher, which was the cause of his immediate death; and another small wound on his left side; and that the fingers of his left hand were cut.
The defence made by the prisoner was, that 'the duke called him to go abroad with him, but he knew not any thing of the matter till he came into the field.'
Some Scottish noblemen, and other gentlemen of rank, gave Mr. Hamilton a very advantageous character, asserting that he was brave, honest, and inoffensive; and the jury, having considered of the affair, gave a verdict of 'manslaughter;' in consequence of which the prisoner prayed the benefit of the statute, which was allowed him.
At the time the lives of the above-mentioned noblemen were thus unfortunately sacrificed, many persons thought they fell by the hands of the seconds; and some late writers on the same opinion: but nothing appears in the written or printed accounts of the transaction, nor did any thing arise on the trial, to warrant so ungenerous a suspicion; it is therefore but justice to the memory of all the parties to discredit such insinuations.
But here a reflection will naturally arise, that we hope may be of service to our readers of superior rank. If all duellists are, as common sense seems to intimate, murderers, in what light are we to consider their seconds? Certainly in no other than as accessories before the fact. The law says, and with great justice, that accessories in case of murder shall be deemed principals.
With regard to the particular case in question, if we believe the plea of the prisoner, we cannot consider him as an accessory, because he was ignorant of the intention of the duke.
Be this as it may, it is much to be lamented that we have not laws of force sufficient to put an effectual stop to the horrid practice of duelling — a practice which had its rise in the ferocious manners of the most barbarous ages, and is a disgrace to any people that pretend to be polished or refined. Honour is made the vile pretence; and murder, real or intended, is always the consequence.
Men ought to consider that their great Creator has intrusted them with life for more valuable purposes than to put it to the hazard on every frivolous occasion. One would imagine that the reflection of a moment would teach any man in his senses that the determination to rush into the presence of his Maker with the crime of murder on his head was sufficient to ensure his perdition!
Happy are those, who have been thus tempted to imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-creatures, if they escape the murdering award or pistol, and have time allotted them to repent of their misdeeds and surely a whole life of penitence is short enough to atone for the intentional murder of a fellow-creature.
CHAPTER 3
WILLIAM JOHNSON and JANE HOUSDEN
Executed for the murder of Mr. Spurling.
* * *
THROUGHOUT the whole annals of our Criminal chronology, though the denial of culprits condemned on the clearest evidence of their guilt is by far too frequently recorded, we cannot adduce an instance similar to the following dying declarations of innocence:
William Johnson, one of these unrelenting sinners, was a native of Northamptonshire, where he served his time to a butcher, and, removing to London, opened a shop in Newport Market; but, business not succeeding to his expectation, he took a house in Long Acre, and commenced cornchandler: in this business he was likewise unsuccessful, on which he sold his stock in trade, and took a public house near Christ Church, in Surrey. Being equally unsuccessful as a victualler, he sailed to Gibraltar, where he was appointed a mate to one of the surgeons of the garrison; in short, he appears to have possessed a genius suited to a variety of employments. Having saved some money at Gibraltar, he came back to his native country, where he soon spent it, and then had recourse to the highway for a supply. Being apprehended in consequence of one of his robberies, he was convicted, but received a pardon. Previous to this he had been acquainted with one Jane Housden, the other hardened wretch, who had been tried and convicted of coining, but also obtained a pardon. It was not long after this pardon (which was procured by great interest) before Housden was again in custody for a similar offence. On the day that she was to be tried, and just as she was brought down to the bar of the Old Bailey, Johnson called to see her; but Mr. Spurling, the head turnkey, telling him that he could not speak to her till her trial was ended, he instantly drew a pistol, and shot Spurling dead on the spot, in the presence of the court, and all the persons attending to hear the trials; Mrs. Housden at the same time encouraging him in the perpetration of this singular murder. The event had no sooner happened than the judges, thinking it unnecessary to proceed on the trial of the woman for coining, ordered both the parties to be tried for the murder; and there being such a number of witnesses to the deed, they were almost immediately convicted, and received sentence of death. From this time to that of their execution, which took place September 19th, 1712, and even at the place of their death, they behaved as if they were wholly insensible of the enormity of the crime which they had committed; and, notwithstanding the publicity of their offence, to which there were so many witnesses, they had the confidence to deny it to the last moment of their lives: nor did they show any signs of compunction for their former sins. After hanging the usual time, Johnson was hung in chains near Holloway, between Islington and Highgate.
CHAPTER 4
THOMAS DOUGLAS
Executed for murder.
* * *
THOMAS Douglas was indicted at the Old Bailey, for the murder of William Sparks, a seaman, at a public house in Wapping.
It appeared, in the course of the evidence, that the parties had been drinking together, till they were inflamed with liquor, when the prisoner took up a knife, and stabbed the other in such a manner that he died on the spot. The atrociousness of the offence was such that Douglas was immediately taken into custody, and, being convicted on the clearest evidence, received sentence of death.
This criminal was born in the county of Berwick, in Scotland, and, having been educated by his parents according to the strictly religious plan prevailing in that country, he was bound apprentice to a sea-faring person at Berwick; and, when he was out of his time, he entered on board a ship in the royal navy, and in this station acquired the character of an expert and valiant seaman.
Having served Queen Anne during several engagements in the Mediterranean and other seas, he returned to England, with Sparks, who was his shipmate, on whom he committed the murder we have mentioned.
After conviction, it was a difficult matter to make Douglas sensible of the enormity of the crime that he had committed; for he supposed that, as he was drunk when he perpetrated the fact, he ought to be considered in the same light as a man who was a lunatic.
This unhappy malefactor suffered at Tyburn, on the 27th of October 1714.
From his fate and sentiments we may learn the following useful instructions. We see that drunkenness is a crime of a very high nature, since it may lead to the commission of the highest. If this man had not been in a state of intoxication, he would probably never have been guilty of murder. We should remember that the bounties of Providence were sent for our use and sustenance, not to be abused. It is a judicious observations of the ingenious authors of the Spectator, that 'If a man commits murder when he is drunk, he must be hanged for it when he is sober. It is no excuse for any one to say he was guilty of a crime when drunk, because drunkenness itself is a crime; and what he may deem an excuse is only an aggravation of his offence; since it is acknowledging that he has been guilty of two crimes instead of one.'
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Murderers, Robbers & Highwaymen"
by .
Copyright © 2013 Stephen Brennan.
Excerpted by permission of Skyhorse Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
