Cambridgeshire Murders Page 3

  My husband was buried on the Sunday evening, T.R. having never come near me for three days past, which was a longer time than he usually intermist’d his visits, came next Monday morning, and renewed his courtship, having all the time promised me marriage if my husband was dead. About noon of that day I was seized on suspicion, and my late husband’s body being taken up, the coroner’s inquest sat upon it, and declared he died of poison; and upon my trial at Ely, which lasted upwards of four hours and where I had the assistance of counsel as far as my case would admit, I was justly convicted of being the guilty person who administered it.

  As it is the fate of wretches given over to their wickedness, to fall from one step to another, so it was my case: for being quite forsaken by T.R. who never visited me since the day I was first in custody; and being conscious that such a sentence as I deserved might pass upon me, I was partly drawn by the insinuations of one T.N. a fellow prisoner, pretending it would be a means to get me off at the assizes,5 and partly by force, to a lewd action which I ought to have complained of as a rape; for he stopped my mouth with my apron, that I could not cry out, and it was so far my fault, that I did not make my complaint till a fortnight after; when I told the gaoler.

  There are many other reports raised of a chicken poison’d, and of lewdness with other persons, which I do solemnly declare to be false. I have here truly confessed the heavy burden of my sins which has sore oppressed my mind, and hope God of his mercy will relieve that weight, and restore me, most unworthy as I am, to his grace and favour for Christ Jesus sake, who came into the World to save sinners, of whom I acknowledge myself one of the greatest.

  All the Good I can now do, after my repentance and prayer to God (in which I have the assistance of Christ’s Ministers) is, First, To warn all young persons to acquaint their friends when any Addresses are made to them; and above all, if any base or lewd persons dare to assault you with anything shocking to modest and chaste ears.

  Second, That they should never leave a person they are engaged to in a pet, nor wed another to whom they are indifferent in spite; for if they come together without affection, the smallest matter will separate them.

  Third, That being married, all persons should mutually love, forgive and forbear, and leave no room for busy meddlers to raise and foment jealousy between two who should be one. And Fourth. If after all diabolical temper should adventure to do that, it becomes the duty of an honest woman to reveal the first instance of such attempts, to her husband or relation; and guard herself by all the powers of grace, and assistance of good friends, to prevent the ill effects, and to rely upon the protection of good Providence in these best endeavours, that he will either remove the temptation, or make way to escape it.

  Sign’d, A. H. Amy Hutchinson, her mark.

  In the presence of

  Mr Alday, Gaoler, &c.

  It is only thanks to one of the remaining statements that we know Amy Hutchinson’s lover as Thomas Reed rather than just T.R. Unfortunately, the information held in parish records at this time was sparse and often incomplete – it was only in the 1830s that the requirement to include a parish-ioner’s occupation was introduced – so the references to Thomas Reed in the Whittlesey parish records may refer to more than one person (although they never overlap and only one Thomas Reed was christened and buried in the parish at the time). Listed here are all the entries relating to Thomas Reed, or Read as his name was also spelt.

  10th February 1725

  Thomas Read, son of George and Ann christened.

  30th April 1749

  Thomas Read married Mary Sudbury,

  8th May 1750

  Isabel, daughter of Thomas and Mary christened.

  18th November 1751

  Thomas, son of Thomas and Mary christened.

  20th November 1751

  Thomas, son of Thomas and Mary buried.

  28th September 1752

  Anne Read, buried.

  21st October 1753

  Robert, son of Thomas and Anne christened.

  25th November 1753

  Robert Read, buried.

  1st September 1767

  Thomas Read buried.

  1st May 1769

  Jane Read, widow of Thomas buried.

  If all the entries do belong to Amy’s Thomas then he was hardly heartbroken, having married for the first time less than six months before her execution and in total marrying two times, outliving one wife and at least two of his three children. At the very least he should have been called as a witness at both the inquest and her trial. If her confession were true then he played an active part in John Hutchinson’s murder and should have been tried alongside her. His relationship with Amy was without doubt a catalyst for the killing, and whether he was involved or not it is clear that he could have been executed too, and surely had a lucky escape.

  Notes

  1 According to parish records her name was spelt ‘Amy’ at her christening, but is then spelt ‘Amey’ on her marriage certificate and in the assize records. Unless quoting from original documents the spelling ‘Amy’ has been used.

  2 Spelt ‘Reed’ in the one surviving assize record but all residents of Whittlesey at the time with that name spelt it ‘Read’.

  3 Variously spelt ‘Whitlesea’, ‘Whittlesea’ and ‘Whittlesey’. Unless quoting from original documents the current spelling ‘Whittlesey’ has been used.

  4 Arsenic is a metallic element, traces of which are found in all human tissue. Historically it was an easy choice for poisoners as it was readily available, especially as a pesticide or rat poison. Acute arsenic poisoning affects the digestive system and symptoms can appear within thirty minutes, the most notable being gastric fever, often accompanied by sickness and bloody diarrhoea. With severe poisoning death can occur in as little as a few hours.

  5 This may have been an attempt by Amy to get pregnant, as it was then illegal to execute a pregnant woman. If condemned, a pregnant woman would be allowed to give birth before being executed; the child would normally have been farmed out to a wet nurse, and in many cases would have died soon afterwards.

  3

  PRIME MINISTER’S ELIMINATION TIME

  In the unique case of an English Prime Minister being assassinated, Cambridgeshire can claim two connections: the victim, Spencer Perceval, although born in London on 1 November 1762, completed his education at Trinity College, Cambridge, before becoming Prime Minister on 4 October 1809. His killer, John Bellingham, was a Cambridge man by birth, having been born in North Street, St Neots, in around 1771.

  While still a teenager Bellingham began a successful business in marine products. In 1800 he visited Archangel in Russia, returning to England in 1802. The following year he married Mary Neville, and in 1804 made another visit to Archangel. But then things began to go wrong for him. The ship in which his cargo was held – referred to variously as the Soyuz or Sojus – sank in the White Sea. Suspecting fraud, Lloyds of London refused to pay against the insurance. They had been alerted by an anonymous letter, which the ship’s owners, Van Brienen, suspected had been sent by Bellingham himself. This prompted Soloman Van Brienen to begin legal proceedings against Bellingham, accusing him of debt.

  Bellingham managed to reach the British Ambassador, but his request for help was denied and he was arrested. He subsequently spent two years in gaol, during which time his business fell into debt. When the initial charges against him were dropped his incarceration continued on the grounds of bankruptcy. In total, Bellingham was in prison for almost six years.

  Released in 1808, by the following year he had found his way back to England. With feelings of bitterness at his abandonment by the British government, he wrote many letters attempting to claim compensation for his ordeal. One reply came from Spencer Perceval’s office, informing him that his claim was baseless.

  During February 1812 he took lodgings in New Millman Street, London, and in March sent the following letter to the police magistrates of Bow Street:

  TO THEIR
WORSHIPS THE POLICE MAGISTRATES

  OF THE PUBLIC OFFICE IN BOW STREET

  Sirs,

  I much regret its being my lot to have to apply to your worships under most peculiar and novel circumstances. For the particulars of the case I refer to the enclosed letter of Mr. Secretary Ryder, the notification from Mr. Perceval, and my petition to Parliament, together with the printed papers herewith. The affair requires no further remark than that I consider his Majesty’s Government to have completely endeavored to close the door of justice, in declining to have, or even to permit, my grievances to be brought before Parliament for redress, which privilege is the birthright of every individual. The purport of the present is, therefore, once more to solicit his Majesty’s Ministers, through your medium, to let what is right and proper be done in my instance, which is all I require. Should this reasonable request be finally denied, I shall then feel justified in executing justice myself – in which case I shall be ready to argue the merits of so reluctant a measure with his Majesty’s Attorney-General, wherever and whenever I may be called upon so to do. In the hopes of averting so abhorrent but compulsive an alternative I have the honour to be, sirs, your very humble and obedient servant,

  JOHN BELLINGHAM

  No. 9 NEW MILLMAN STREET,

  March 23, 1812

  This letter was communicated to Members of Parliament, but no action was taken. Having again applied to the Treasury for assistance, to no avail, Bellingham decided that revenge was his only option and methodically set about becoming acquainted with the House and its members. He bought a pair of pistols and ammunition and became a frequent visitor to parliament. On 20 April he visited a tailor and asked him to alter his overcoat to accommodate a 9in inside breast pocket.

  At 5.15 p.m. on 11 May 1812 Prime Minister Perceval and some aides entered the lobby entrance to the House of Commons. Bellingham had been sitting by the fire waiting: he crossed towards Perceval and pulled a pistol from his coat pocket, fired a single round into the Prime Minister and calmly returned to his seat.

  One of Perceval’s companions, Lord Osborne, rushed forward to catch the Prime Minister, and with assistance from the other ministers carried him into the Speaker’s Rooms. It was immediately obvious however that nothing could be done.

  The exits were closed and someone shouted out ‘Where’s the murderer?’, to which Bellingham replied, ‘I am the unfortunate man’.

  Asked why he had shot Perceval, Bellingham replied, ‘Want of redress, and denial of justice’. One of the witnesses to the shooting, the solicitor Henry Burgess, approached Bellingham and asked, ‘You have another pistol?’ Bellingham replied in the affirmative. ‘Is it loaded?’ Burgess asked. Again Bellingham replied ‘Yes.’ Burgess searched Bellingham and retrieved a second small pistol.

  At about 5.30 p.m. Dr William Lynn arrived from Great George Street, Westminster. He stated that:

  His [Perceval’s] body was partly off the table; his shirt and white waistcoat were bloody; and on examining the body, I found a wound of the skin about over the fourth rib on the left side near the breastbone. The wound had the appearance of a large pistol ball having entered. On examining his pulse, I found he was quite dead. I then passed a probe to ascertain the direction of the ball, and found it had passed obliquely downwards and inwards in the direction of the heart. The wound was at least 3 in deep, and I have no doubt that it caused his death.

  Bellingham was taken to Newgate Prison and at 10 a.m. on Tuesday 12 May an inquest was opened in the Rose & Crown public house. On the same day Bellingham sent the following letter to his landlady:

  Dear Madam,

  Yesterday midnight I was escorted to this neighbourhood by a noble troop of Light Horse, and delivered into the care of Mr. Newman (by Mr. Taylor the Magistrate and MP) as a state prisoner of the first class. For eight years I have never found my mind so tranquil as since this melancholy but necessary catastrophe, as the merits or demerits of my peculiar case must be regularly unfolded in a criminal court of justice, to ascertain the guilty party, by a jury of my country.

  I have to request the favour of you to send me three or four shirts, some cravats, handkerchiefs, night-caps, stockings, etc, out of my drawers, together with comb, soap, toothbrush, with any other trifle which presents itself which you may think I may have occasion for, and enclose them in my leather trunk, and the key, please to send sealed per bearer; also my great-coat, flannel gown, and black waistcoat, which will much oblige.

  Dear madam, your obedient servant, John Bellingham.

  To the above please to add the Prayer Book.

  On Friday 15 May Bellingham appeared at the Old Bailey before the Lord Mayor and the judges, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, Baron Graham and Sir Nash Grose. He was refused the option of putting in a plea of insanity and instead pleaded ‘not guilty’.

  At the trial, despite the several lengthy statements he made in his defence, he was found guilty. Until the time of his execution he was allowed only bread and water, and all means by which he may have been able to attempt suicide were eliminated. What most distressed him, however, was being unable to shave and so appearing ungentlemanly.

  The execution took place at Newgate on 18 May, at 8 a.m. An hour later his body was transported to the morgue of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, where he was dissected ‘in the furtherance of medical science’. He left behind three sons; Spencer Perceval twelve children.

  Bellingham left the following letter for his wife:

  MY BLESSED MARY

  It rejoiced me beyond measure to hear you are likely to be well provided for. I am sure the public at large will participate in, and mitigate, your sorrows; I assure you, my love, my sincerest endeavours have ever been directed to your welfare. As we shall not meet any more in this world, I sincerely hope we shall do so in the world to come. My blessing to the boys, with kind remembrance to Miss Stephens, for whom I have the greatest regard, in consequence of her uniform affection for them. With the purest intentions, it has always been my misfortune to be thwarted, misrepresented and ill-used in life; but however, we feel a happy prospect of compensation in a speedy translation to life eternal. It’s not possible to be more calm or placid than I feel, and nine hours more will waft me to those happy shores where bliss is without alloy.

  Yours ever affectionate,

  JOHN BELLINGHAM.

  The assassination of Spencer Perceval was surrounded by some quirky stories. On 11 May Perceval told his wife that he had dreamt a man in the House of Commons had shot him. John Williams, a wealthy mining engineer, dreamt of the exact details of the assassination. This vision came to him after the event but well before the news could have reached him in Cornwall. At the other end of the country, in a village near Gretna Green, the news of the assassination was passed to the Dumfries and Galloway Courier on 10 May, before the assassination had taken place. In the General Election of 1983 one of Bellingham’s descendants, Henry Bellingham, was elected as Conservative Member for Norfolk North West constituency; in 1997 one of his opponents was Roger Percival, by coincidence a descendant of Spencer Perceval.

  Perceval was not well liked and when the news of his death reached many parts of the country it was greeted with great celebration.

  4

  THE EARLY BIRD CATCHES THE KILLER

  Some people quite literally get away with murder, but because of a coincidental meeting with a sharp-witted woman, this was not to be the case for Thomas Weems of Godmanchester.

  Thomas was a strongly built man in his early twenties when, around the start of 1818, he began courting a local girl, Mary Ann Sawyer. Mary was still in her teens and described as being of a ‘very unprepossessing appearance’. Before long their relationship faltered, and so, in order to hold on to her lover, Mary claimed that she was pregnant. Thomas did his best to disentangle himself, even moving from Godmanchester to Great Staunton, where he was eventually arrested and forced to accept responsibility for Mary and their unborn child.

  Thomas found work in a mill
near Goldington, Bedfordshire, and although the couple married at the local church, they did not live together; Thomas chose to live in Goldington while Mary returned to Godmanchester to live with her grandfather in St Ann’s Lane. When, during Thomas’s several visits to Mary over the following months, it became apparent that Mary had lied and the pregnancy was false, Thomas left his job and searched for other work, moving south until he eventually took employment as a miller in Edmonton, north London.

  He had only been in Edmonton for a short time when he met Maria Woodward, whom he described as ‘as fine a young woman as any in the world’. After a courtship of about two months he proposed and she accepted. It seems that it was at this point that he decided that he would have to murder his wife. He told Maria that he needed to return to Huntingdon for money, and that they would marry as soon as he returned.

  At the start of May Thomas began his journey back to Godmanchester. On the way he met John Beck, a postboy. The two had grown up together in Godmanchester, and Beck, returning to Huntingdon from Royston, offered him a lift in his chaise.1 It seems that it never occurred to Thomas Weems that he should have been more discreet. On their journey Thomas told John of his new position in Edmonton and that he had met a young woman whom he was determined to marry. John was aware that Thomas was already married and warned him against bigamy. Thomas replied to this was that he was going to fetch his wife and would soon get rid of her.

  John dropped Thomas on the outskirts of Godmanchester, but saw Thomas and Mary together later in the week, early on Thursday evening. Thomas informed him that they would be leaving for Edmonton the following morning while his wife said that they were planning to walk. John was shocked and told Thomas that it would be impossible for Mary to walk that far. The reply was that, if that was the case, she ‘might stop on the road and be damned’.