Author: secretary

Following a report in a previous issue of the newspaper, the clergyman accused of assaulting a lady in his house seeks to put the record straight.

“To the EDITOR of the Mercury.

Sir, – I have noticed a paragraph in your paper of last week (headed ‘Clerical Faux-pas‘) respecting an unfortunate event between Miss Nevitt and myself, wherein wilful misrepresentation, very prejudicial to my character, are stated, which renders it my duty to request that you will be candid enough to give publicity to the following simple and succinct facts of the case. In making my comments, I shall adhere closely to the misstatements as they have appeared: and in the outset positively assert that Miss Nevitt did not come to my house that evening by any express invitation; nay, indeed, she was not even expected. – The Magistrate, it is intimated, to whom the complaint was first made, refused to take cognizance of it: that is utterly false. After hearing both sides of the matter, he told Miss N. she had better separate, and think no more of it: this good advice would have been acted upon, had it not been for an officious person, ‘of better feeling,’ it is true, than judgement – late a Minister, but now properly deprived of his preferment and cure, and who therefore cannot find other an better employment than to meddle and amuse himself with what does not at all concern him. – It is further stated that Mr. Bourne entered the court with a ‘handful of letters;’ whereas I communicated only once with Miss N., and then by her earnest solicitation. This said solicitor certainly did his part ‘very ably,’ as far as exaggeration went and in deviating strangely from the truth, even magnifying in a manner a look into an assault. – The next point is the unreasonable intrusion, and the disturbance she created during the time my family were assembled for prayers: when mildly asked whether she intended to join in our devotions, her reply was, ‘No : human nature will not permit me, not shall I quite the house till paid what is due to me.’ This led to other subjects; and when accused, not without reasonable cause, of being marked and avoided as a busy-body and mischief-maker, she became very furious and noisy; and not accustomed to such contentions and strife, I begged of her repeatedly to desist, – if not, I should be under the necessity of putting her out of the house. This threat made her more violent still, and in the course of which, her provocations being very great, I gave her, in an unguarded moment, a slight tap on the mouth, which was then covered with eruptions, and turned her out. At the same moment, and before the door was closed, I placed the clothes she required into her hands. However, it is alleged that she returned again and was abused, which is an abominable falsehood – she let the premises immediately, nor was a single stitch in her old tattered garment disarranged. – I have every reason to believe, and undoubtedly it will be evident to unbiased minds, that she came to my house on the said evening with a premeditated determination to disturb the peace and quietness of my family: at all event, her unbecoming behaviour will hear me out in this impression; and the only lame pretext assigned for her unseemly conduct is, her ‘being unfortunately dull of hearing’ – she never showed any objection to such a privilege when an inmate of the house, and had her heart been in the cause then, no interruption of unpleasantness would have occurred. – Again, it is insinuated that I invited her to my house out of charity, and afterwards charged nearly 4l. for her board: no agreement was alluded to in my letter, because Miss N. knew very well, and she cannot deny it, that an engagement was made with Mrs. H. some months previously to her being admitted into my house, that she should pay the very inadequate sum of 20l. a year; and under that express understanding, I of course took payment for the few weeks she had been under my roof, but out of compassion gave her six months’ board prior to this arrangement : and now the public may form an opinion of the suitable return for this kindness. – I would only further observe, that Miss N. left my house to reside with the Rev. Mr. Fisher some six weeks to this frivolous affair having taken place, and had only arrived at the most a quarter of an hour before she was sent back again.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, J. HOYLE.”

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1838.

An outrageous assault by a man of the cloth was the result of a lady’s failure to kneel for family prayers. But there is more . . .

“CLERICAL FAUX-PAS, or a Congregation in Danger. – On Tuesday last a rather curious case of assault was brought before the magistrates sitting at Alford. The complainant was Miss Knevet, from the neighbourhood of Grantham, a very respectable lady of good family, who had for a number of years visited in the neighbourhood – amongst others, in the family of the Rev. Jas. Hoyle, and she was there on good Friday last, on a most pressing invitation, as appeared by a letter from both Mr. and Mrs. Hoyle which was read in court. The outrageous assault had been previously complained of before a clerical magistrate, who, it was understood had refused to take cognizance of it: this created intense anxiety, and a clergyman of better feeling took up the matter in Miss Knevet’s behalf. On Mr. Bourne, the solicitor, entering the court (with a handful of letters and papers), it became crowded to excess, and that gentleman in a very able and feeling manner opened the case buy reading Mr. and Mrs. Hoyle’s letter of invitation, couched in language of the finest case, which amused the audience exceedingly. the magistrates, our of good feeling for the cloth, wished to dispense with any more of the letters, to the no small disappointment of most persons present. It appeared that the Rev. Gentleman’s piety outran his meekness! and that on Friday evening, when at family prayer, Miss Knevet did not kneel on the hard floor, but rested her head upon her hand on the table, which his Reverence did not consider due respect to him, and some sharp remonstrance being given, but not distinctly heard by Miss K. (who is unfortunately dull of hearing), his Reverence gave her a violent blow on the head, which broke off her ear-ring and caused her mouth to bleed. Not satisfied with this, he insisted on turning her out of doors; which brought out an expressing that accounts for many a bad feeling, – ‘Not till you pay me what you own me!’ However, he forced her out of doors about 9 o’clock at night, without bonnet, cape, or the like. After having been away for some time, she returned to ask again for them. The ruffian again abused her, and tore her dress in ejecting her from the premises. So ungovernable, indeed, appears to be the temper of this spiritual teacher, that it was with some difficulty the Magistrates could restrain him from the most indecent language in court, though they repeatedly insisted on his silence, and they as repeatedly expressed their thorough conviction that not the slightest imputation could possible be attached to Miss Knevet. The Rec. Gentleman rested his defence entirely on his right to command reverence and respect from his congregation, for such he considered it, there being three or more persons present at prayer. He contended that he had invited the complainant to his house out of charity, and that her want of respect was the height of ingratitude: but Mr. Bourne made it appear that in settling the ‘what you owe me’ question, his reverence had made a stoppage of nearly 4l. for board, as confirmation of the charitable intention of the invitation! The Magistrates (T. W. Yorke and Jos. Hunt, Esqs), after the most patient hearing of the defence and the utmost forbearance (against the insolence shown to them), with great pains prevailed on the parties to retire and arrange the matter.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th May, 1838.

Many important clergy were present as the Bishop of Lincoln consecrated the reconstructed St. Michael’s church. Unfortunately, the local gentry had another engagement – the Newmarket races!

“The Bishop of Lincoln slept on Tuesday night at the house of the Rev. Dr. Bonney, at King’s Cliffe, and on Wednesday morning came to Stamford to perform the interesting ceremony of consecrating and opening the new church of St. Michael. This event passed off in the most effective and happy way. The weather was fine, and the town was filled with company, including about 70 of the clergy of the neighbourhood, accompanied in many instances by their families. The peculiar service of the occasion was performed at the altar by the Bishop, supported by the Rev. T. K. Bonney, Archdeacon of Leicester; and the Rev. Dr. Bonney, Archdeacon of Bedford and Rural Dean of Stamford, finely read the usual morning service of the church. The choir was found to have been most effectively trained by Mr. Woolman; the performances in this department afforded the highest gratification: indeed nothing could exceed the fine effect of the choruses, and of the musical execution generally; the whole was the result of native talent only. The organ (the old one restored), though of small power, was admirably played by Mr. Woolman.

The Bishop preached the sermon, taking his text from Haggal, ‘The glory of this house shall exceed the glory of the former.’ His lordship adverted to the antiquity and acknowledged acceptableness of such temples for the worship of Almighty God, and attributed to the want of them in sufficient number, or to the want of buildings of sufficient capacity for the population, the secession from the Established Church which had so extensively prevailed. He eulogised the distinguished Prelate by whom the attention of the Legislature had been first called to this evil, and by whom that ‘Incorporated Society’ had been suggested, from which on the present occasion had flowed so liberal a contribution towards rebuilding this church in Stamford. The Bishop urged his hearers to aid the committee by whom the beautiful edifice had been completed for public worship, in liquidating the debt incurred in the good work; – and so effective was the appeal, and so powerful the effect produced by this first opening of the church, that the sum of 171l. 4s. 1d. was collected during the performance of the Hallelujah chorus at the close of the service. The Bishop himself gave 10l., and expressed to the Churchwardens his entire approbation of the way in which every thing had been done.

A party of 120 ladies and gentlemen afterwards partook of a splendid déjeûné provided by Mr. Sandwell at the Hotel. Three tables were set out in the large room: at the principal one, the Bishop of Lincoln presided; and at the others, the Archdeacons of Bedford and Leicester. The health of Mr. Brown, of Norwich, the architect of the church, was proposed and drank with every demonstration of respect. Mr. Brown, in acknowledging the compliment, stated that he was more in his element in building a church than in making a speech; to which it was replied that he had constructed a church which would speak for itself. Every person acknowledged that the edifice was one in which the architect and builders might feel a just pride, with reference as well to its beauty and convenience, as to the singular cheapness with which so admirable a structure had been raised. The cost has been about 4000l.: we have before had occasion to remark, that persons who have a right to be considered judges in such matters, have supposed, on looking at the building, that it must have cost half as much more. – The amount of subscriptions is yet deficient about 200l. to cover the total expenses – a sum which we have no doubt will speedily be contributed. Services will take place on Sunday next in the morning an evening, when sermons will be preached by the Rev. Joseph Pratt, of Paston, and the Rev. Ed. Kelly, of Melton Mowbray.

This being a race-week at Newmarket, the Marquis of Exeter and his family were not able to attend the consecration of the new church in Stamford.”

The Stamford Mercury, 21st October, 1836.

The Asiatic Cholera epidemic of 1831 – 32 began in north east England and spread widely throughout Britain. As today, there was much misinformation and scaremongering in the newspapers. It was not until the outbreak of Cholera in Soho in 1854 that John Snow discovered that the disease was water-borne. But why did all the sockists of Beaufoy’s have so many names?!

“BEAUFOY’s CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTIONS of the CHLORIDE of SODA and of LIME. Prepared of uniform strength, according to the formula of M. Labarraque of Paris.

BEAUFOY and Co. of South Lambeth, London, feel it their duty to caution the public against the danger of using Chlorides of uncertain and variable strengths and qualities. – The safe and ample directions for using Beaufoy’s Chlorides are not applicable to any other preparation, unless precisely similar to those made in their Laboratory. – The public safety demands a public declaration that these Directions have been copied, and are affixed by the Venders to Chlorides quite different in every essential particular from Beaufoy’s preparations. Beaufoy’s genuine preparations according to Labarraque’s formula, are easily distinguished by their peculiar label upon the wrapper, which should be examined to see that it has not been opeded.

Sold by Mills and Newzam, Handson, Mortlock, and White, Stamford; Nettleship, Keyworth, and Smith, Lincoln; Smith, Harwood, Caparn, Bean, Dawson, Briggs, Noble, Thomas and Clarke, Boston; Caparn, Morley, Holdsworwth, an Harrison, Horncastle; Creasey, Heckington; Groves, and Simpson, Sleaford; Casswell, Falkingham; Westmorland, Billingborough; Stableforth, Pinchbeck; Digby, Watson, Boor, Pigott, and Gilbert, Spalding; Artindate, Coningsby; Tupholme, and Rainey, Spilsby; Robinson, Alford; Abraham, Wainfleet; Cowham, and Peach, Grantham; Strawson, Hurst, Sutton, and Johnson, Louth; Burnham, and Skelton, Grimsby; Gamble, and Lester and Borkett, Gainsborough; Hope, Uppingham; Silver, Oakham; Tuxford, Melton; Marfleet, Crowland; H. Wright, Whitwell; W. Wright, J. Parnell, and Sturton, Peterborough; Casterton, Market Rasen; Snell, Caistor; Hettersley, Barton; Brown, Ball, and Nicholson, Brigg; Goddard, Holbeach; Wright, Gedney; Fields, Long Sutton; and by all respectable chemists and druggists; of whom may be had, gratis, an account of some of the properties and used to which these Chlorides have been successfully applied.

Price of the Chloride of Soda, 3s. 6d.; of Lime, 2s. 6d., quart bottles included, with directions for dilution and use enclosed with the sealed wrapper.”

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1831.

“Such is the mania for ‘anti-choleras,’ that we have not only anti-cholera scent bottles, and anti-cholera lozenges, anti-cholera girdles to be worn next the skin, but (best of all) there is now found out an anti-cholera gin!

The bodies of persons apparently dead of cholera have been in some instances observed to more. M. Londe, President of the later Warsaw commission, has expressed his belief that many have been buried alive in the complaint.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th December, 1831.

A captive bear ran amok in London – poor Bruin! His owner was a hairdresser and it seems the bear was kept to provide fur for balding customers. Or perhaps he sold bear grease as a hair preparation?

Bear Hunt in the City – On Friday afternoon the inhabitants of Hen & Chicken-court and the adjacent parts of Fleet-street, near St. Dunstan’s church and Fetter-lane, were thrown into a state of consternation by the escape of a huge Russian bear from premises at the back of the house of Mr. Bailey, hair-dresser, where he had been for some time fattening in order to supply his Majesty’s subjects with crops of hair. Bruin, after slipping his collar and demolishing the den, made his first entrée through the window of a house in the court, where and old woman was busily engaged in ironing, and who saluting him with an emphatic “Who are you?” made a rapid exit, leaving him in quiet possession of the apartment, and , hastily shutting the door, cut off his further advance in this direction. An alarm was instantly raised, and the shop-doors closed so as to prevent his egress to the street, and a gallant sally was made from the windows of a publish house in the rear, buy several persons who happened to be in the parlour at the time, headed by Mr. Bailey, the proprietor, armed with whatever missiles the place afforded. From this position the bear was driven into the vaults below, one of the assailants receiving, however, a grip in the arm, which rendered surgical aid immediately necessary. In the cellar the chance of mischief was more appalling, several workmen being engaged in repairs; and Mrs. Haydon, the wife of the proprietor of the shades below, narrowly escaped encountering him in his path by shutting herself in a pantry. He here seized a youth by the leg, which he severely lacerated, but being hotly pursued soon surrendered at discretion; and by the agility of the proprietor, who in the attempt received a bite in the arm, a rope was thrown round his neck and Bruin was conducted back to his former quarters.

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1836.

The full story of the murder of Elizabeth Longfoot, of Easton came out after one of the perpetrators was apprehended and confessed under questioning, implicating his accomplices.

“The Murder at Easton. – It may be in the recollection of our readers that a murder of a most atrocious description was committed about four o’clock on the morning of 6th of March last at the village of Easton, near Stamford, upon the body of an elderly single woman, named Elizabeth Longfoot, who lived alone, and whose house was robbed at the same time of a considerable sum of money, together with some silver spoons and other property. On examining the corpse, marks of violence were seen about the neck and throat, which led to the conclusion that death must have been effected by strangulation.. Immediately after the discovery of the dreadful deed, information was conveyed to the Rev. C. Atlay and Dr. Hopkinson, Magistrates for Northamptonshire, who proceeded to The Bell public house at Easton, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the circumstances connected with the murder; and owing to the unremitting exertions of these gentlemen, who offered a reward, it is satisfactory to state that the perpetrators of the cold-hearted and inhuman deed are likely to be brought to justice, as they are at present in custody, a circumstance which was accomplished in the following manner:- The morning after the murder, John Stansor, who resided at Easton, and who was a loose character, having been repeatedly in custody for poaching and other lawless acts, absconded, and had been away for a considerable time before any suspicion was attached to him of being guilty of the murder. The Magistrates, acting on the impression that he was concerned, procured the assistance of Reed, constable of Stamford, and that of Goddard, a Bow-street officer, and these persons, after scouring the country for upwards of a hundred miles without success, at length discovered the object of their search at Willow Hall, not far from Peterborough, where they apprehended him on the 4th April. On being take before the Magistrates and questioned as to the murder, and the cause of his absconding, he at first denied all knowledge of it, but, subsequently, having undergone several examinations, he made a full confession of the circumstance, implicating himself and John Archer and Richard Woodward in both the robbery and the murder: they were apprehended on the 11th. His confession was to this effect:- He states that at three o’clock in the morning, about a fortnight before the murder, Woodward, Archer, and himself, having passed the night at a Tom and Jerry shop in the neighbourhood, proceeded, according to a previous arrangement, to the house of the deceased, and it was planned by Woodward that, as soon as they had effected an entrance into the house, he (Stansor) should throw himself into the bed of the deceased, and hold her down under the clothes, while his companions were robbing the house, and by such means they expected to be able to avoid detection, as the old lady was well acquainted with their persons. When they got to the house, however, and were in the act of removing the boards from the wash-house window, the noise awoke the deceased, and caused her to throw up the bed room window, and to cry out, “You villains, I’ll swear my life against you in the morning.” Being thus foiled, they went away, and supposing that it would not be an easy matter to surprise the deceased, they came to the resolution of murdering her, in order to prevent her having the power to identify their persons. Stansor next went on to state, that on the morning of the 6th of March, about four o’clock, his companions and himself went to the house and were proceeding to remove the boards from the wash-room window, when the deceased was aroused, and coming down stairs, opened the side door of the house, and ran into the street, crying “Murder! thieves!” which alarmed two young men named Thompson, living immediately opposite, and according to their statement to the Magistrates in the morning after the murder had occurred, it appeared that, after listening to the cries for a few minutes, they distinctly heard a gurgling noise proceed from the direction of the house, which caused them to suppose the deceased was unwell; they accordingly got up, supposing that something unusual was the matter, and had proceeded as far as the gate of the premises of the deceased, when they heard the house door lock inside. They then went to the front of the house, and upon looking up, observed a light move from one room to another, and supposing that it was the old lady who had been aroused by some false alarm, they returned to their own house, where they remained watching the opposite house for three quarters of an hour, but saw nothing further that night. The confession of Stansor confirms this account for, according to his statement, as the deceased was returning to her house after giving the alarm, and just as she was coming to the window of the wash-house, Archer sprang upon her from a corner in which he had concealed himself, knocked her down, and pressing his knees against her throat, dispatched her by strangling her, whilst Woodward took a plough line from his pocket, and having fastened it round the neck of the deceased, they hauled her into the house, and then shut and locked the door, at the moment the Thompsons came to the gate to listen. After this confession, the accomplices were taken into custody, and Woodward confirmed the whole statement before the Magistrates, and subsequently to the officers when removed to the prison. The result of the statements made by the two prisoners has led to the apprehension of ten other men, inhabitants of Eas(t)on, who had committed burglaries and sheepstealing, all of whom have been committed to Northampton gaol on the several charges preferred against the. The circumstance had caused the greatest sensation in the neighbourhood, as one of the prisoners had borne an irreproachable character.

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1838.

It seems Easton was gaining a reputation for being a hotbed of criminality due to the large scale and amount of crime committed there in recent weeks! But was there, perhaps, a reason for this?

“In addition to the names of 12 males, whom we have shown to be committed to gaol for various felonies at Easton, near Stamford, we lament to record those of 8 females, viz. Mary Ploughwright, Mary Hull, Ann Ford, Mary Ploughwright, jun., Eleanor Ploughwright, Sarah Ploughwright, Frances Walden, and Sarah Scotchbrook, all of that parish, who were yesterday se’nnight committed to the house of correction at Oundle to hard labour to various and repeated delinquencies; thus completing a catalogue of no less than twenty persons, all within a few weeks extracted from the village, and at the present moment incarcerated, for offences from the lowest to the highest in the scale of crime, even murder! – A grave enquiry arises as to the cause of such extreme delinquency, in a village of not very large population; and the chief cause seems to be, that formerly the digging of stones for the purpose of making slates for roofing was very extensively carried on at Easton, but latterly it has been the pleasure of the Marquis of Exeter, the owner of the soil to restrict the continuance of the trade and many person have been in consequence thrown out of employment, their connections, and their settlements, being at Easton, they do not like to quit the parish, and their poverty and their idleness have produced great demoralisation.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th May, 1838.

As a consequence of the investigation of the Easton murder, many labourers were found to have committed lesser crimes.

“Easton Murder. – The enquiry before the Magistrates (still going on) has led to the committal for trial at Northampton of Richard Woodward and John Archer (noticed in our last to be in custody) as perpetrators of this horrid and almost unparalleled act of atrocity. It has also led to other most important results: on Wednesday last, from circumstances which transpired during the investigation, the following persons, all of Easton, were committed for trial, viz. Jacob Earl, labourer, on the charge of stealing sheep, the property of Thomas Thompson, Esq., of Tinwell; Chas Newey, tailor, charged with stealing fowls from the premises of the Rev. Gregory Bateman; Henry Ford and James Ploughwright, labourers, on the charge of stealing fowls from the premises of Mr. Charles Whitehead; and William Woodward, labourer for stealing fowls from Mr. John Trasler, butcher. – There are still parties in custody whose cases are not disposed of, and most of those committed will have to answer for a plurality of crimes: and dark as may be this miserable picture, we are sorry to observe that the Augean stable of Easton (in Northamptonshire, about two miles south-west of Stamford), yet containing little more than 100 houses, does not appear to be yet nearly cleansed.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

The dreadful murder at Easton, reported in last week’s post, continued to fascinate. However, it appears they had apprehended the wrong men and had to discharge them.

“In the case of the late atrocious murder of Elizabeth Longfoot, of Easton, the coroner’s jury on Wednesday last returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person on persons unknown; and yesterday the inquiry of the Magistrates on the same painful subject, which has continued almost daily at Easton since Tuesday se’nnight (the day of the murder), terminated by the release on his own recognizance of Andrew Porter, on whom suspicion had fallen: other parties apprehended had previously been discharged: thus it would seem that the perpetrator of this dreadful crime must remain undiscovered till the writhing of a guilty conscience, or some act of that Great Being ‘from whom no secrets are hid,’ shall develope (sic) the horrid transaction.”

The Stamford Mercury, 16th March, 1838.

But the police did not give up and three weeks later, another man was arrested:

“John Stansor, on whom suspicion rests as a party concerned in the later murder of Eliaabeth Longfoot at Easton, and for whose apprehension the most unremitting exertion have been made in various directions since the perpetration of the horrid deed, was on Wednesday last taken, whilst emplyed in spreading manure at Willow-hall Farm, near Peterboro’, (where he was engaged under the name of Islip,) by Mr. Wm. Reed, the chief constable of Stamford, and is now in safe custody.”

The Stamford Mercury, 6th April, 1938.

But then again, perhaps some of the released men were guilty after all . . . ? We think the gang of thieves mentioned in the last sentence were unconnected with the murder.

“Easton Murder. – Since the apprehension of John Stansor, noticed in our last paper, the searching inquiry of the Magistrates has been pursued with additional zeal: breathless anxiety now prevails on the subject, both in the village of Easton and in the neighbourhood. On Wednesday last Stansor underwent an examination before the Rev. Charles Atlay and W. L. Hopkinson, Esq. M. D., ad was remanded. A meeting of the Magistrates was afterwards held at the Bull and Swan inn, St. Martin’s, and was attended by the Marquis of Exeter. Richard Woodward, slater, and John Archer, labourer, inhabitants of Easton, are in custody: the latter was one of the persons originally apprehended as implicated in the crime: the fact elicited are, however, properly kept secret, and we studiously avoid promulgating various circumstances which rumour has brought to our knowledge, lest any observation at present in a public paper might tend to defeat the ends of justice. Yesterday a whole gang of thieves were apprehended at Easton: many are lodged in Stamford gaol.”

The Stamford Mercury, 13th April, 1838.