Mercuriosities

Corn prices were high in 1828 thanks to the Corn Laws which ensured that nobility and large landowners made a good profit from their land at the expense of the rest of society. The right to vote was not universal, depending largely on land ownership, consequently, there was absolutely no desire to reduce prices. These Grantham ladies decided to rebel and get merry at the same time. If only they had restricted themselves to drinking tea.

“Some little disturbance took place at Grantham on Monday evening last, in consequence of the recent advance in the price of flour. A party of the softer sex having assembled in the course of the afternoon to dignify the street in which they reside with the appellation of New-Street, in lieu of the vulgar one of “Sandpit-Lane,” chose to celebrate the important event by a tea-drinking. From the effects of this refreshment, probably, no mischief would have ensued, had not sundry donations from their more opulent neighbours enabled them to purchase too large a portion of the evil spirit gin, which overpowered the bohea, and produced its usual wonderful and calamitous consequences. The ladies threw off their meek and quiet dispositions, and suddenly became lords and masters : and having taken it into their high consideration that the millers and bakers had acted unfairly in being guided by the value of wheat in fixing the price of flour, they proceeded to inflict summary punishment : being joined by a number of boys and other rabble, they succeeded in demolishing several windows, before the police could assemble and put a stop to their proceedings.”

The Stamford Mercury, 24th October, 1828.

Suicide among the clergy is not unknown, but in Great Casterton it’s astonishing and noteworthy, judging by the length of this article. Here is some up-to-date advice designed to prevent the desperation the clergy sometimes feel, that can ultimately lead to suicide.

“DISTRESSING SUICIDE OF A RUTLAND CLERGYMAN

A painful sensation was caused in the district around Stamford on Thursday morning by the circulation of a report, which unfortunately only proved too true, that the Rev. Edwd. George Sellman, for many years Rector of Great Casterton-with-Pickworth, had shot himself with a revolver on the previous night. It transpired that about 11 p.m. the occupants of the Rectory were alarmed by the report of firearms, and subsequently Mr. Sellman was discovered by his son Edgar lying on the library floor in a pool of blood. In the right hand was clutched a revolver from which three shots had been fired, and two of these had entered the body, one penetrating the heart and causing immediate death. In the jacket pocket a six-chambered revolver, fully loaded, was afterwards found, proving that the sad act had been deliberately planned. Deceased was addicted to taking morphia in large quantities, and he had been rather eccentric in his manner of late. He was educated at Cambridge, ordained in 1875, Curate at Holy Trinity, Taunton, from that year to 1877, Curate at Clyst St. George, Devon, 1879-81, and Curate at Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks, up to 1883, when he was appointed to the living at Great Casterton. He was nearly 50 years of age, and leaves a wife, two sons, and a daughter.

Mr. E.W. Phillips, county coroner, held an inquest at the Crown inn on Thursday night, Mr. J. Clark being foreman of the jury. Lieut.-Col. White, agent to the Marquis of Exeter, who is patron of the living, was present. The Coroner having remarked upon the very unpleasant duty they had been called together to perform, said it was most unfortunate the presence of Mrs. Sellman would be required at that inquiry, but as she was the last person to see the deceased alive her evidence could not be dispensed with.–Mrs. Ellen Elizabeth Sellman was then called. She said she last saw her husband alive at 10.30 on the previous night, when he said “Good night” to her. He then appeared as usual, and she saw nothing strange in his manner.–Edgar Neville Newmarch Sellman, student, son of the deceased, stated that he was lying on his bed, fully dressed, at about 11 o’clock, when he heard a noise which sounded like a revolver shot. He went down to Mrs. Sellman’s boudoir and spoke to her about the matter, and then went downstairs to see what was going on . The library door was shut, and he entered the dining-room adjoining and looked through the key hole. He saw there was a light in the room and he went out of doors round to the library window, which he found wide open. He then discovered his father lying just inside the room with a pool of blood near his head. He felt the pulse and, having satisfied himself that life was extinct, went and saw his mother and roused Mr. Dexter, who came to the house. Witness then cycled to Stamford and called for Dr. Middlemist.–The Foreman : Was deceased in the habit of sitting up longer at night than the other member of the family? Witness : Yes ; he was occasionally in the habit of going into the church in the evening and playing the organ, and at such times he went to bed fairly late–later than the rest. He would go out after dinner and supper and come back at any hour of the evening, frequently late.–He did not give you any cause for suspicion last evening? No ; I did not think he was any different yesterday form usual.–A juryman : Had you any particular reason for not taking your clothes off last night ? Yes, simply because I was not going to bed just then.– P.c. Plant asked what made the witness feel his father’s pulse to satisfy himself that he was dead.–The Coroner : That is an absurd question ; I shall not allow that.–Mr LeBoeuf (a juror) : was it known that your father had a revolver and was in the habit of practising with it ? Witness : It was known that he had a revolver, but he was not in the habit of practising with it.–You say you did not see the revolver at the time ? Yes, the right hand was under the body, and I thought I should be doing wrong in moving it.–Has he fired the revolver before in the house ? Yes.–William Dexter, farmer, Great Casterton, spoke to the last witness calling him up. When he saw deceased he was lying with his head just on the edge of the window-sill, face downwards, and his arms were underneath him. He pulled out the right arm and found a revolver underneath him.–By the Coroner : I am sure both arms were underneath him.–The son was then recalled and asked by the Coroner which hand he took to feel the pulse ? He replied that it was the left. As far as he could remember the hand underneath deceased was the right in which the revolver was subsequently found.–P.c. Plant, stationed at Ryhall, deposed to a bloodstained revolver, from which three shots had been fired, being handed to him. It was a central-fire weapon, and contained two loaded cartridges. In the deceased’s jacket pocket witness subsequently found a pin-fire revolver loaded in all six chambers.–Mr. R. C. Middlemist, surgeon, Stamford, stated that he had been deceased’s medical attendant nearly three years. He usually attended him when suffering from some eccentricity which he should say was of a temporary nature. He had not been organically ill, but generally suffered from depression.–By the Coroner : To my knowledge deceased had taken narcotic drugs for some time. I have known it for the last six months. He took them without my orders and in excessive amounts–sufficient to kill two or three people who were not used to taking drugs. I have proof of that in a bill in my pocket.–The Coroner : And was he when under the influence of these drugs as rational as at other times ? No, he took morphia to such an extent that natural depression followed. Continuing, witness said he saw deceased on the previous afternoon speaking to his (witness’s) coachman. He observed to his coachman that he thought deceased looked very strange indeed, and he considered he was under the influence of morphia. He was not quite compos mentis, and the pupils of his eyes appeared to be very contracted. Mr. Middlemist then described the result of his examination of the body. The waistcoat was open and the shirt was covered with gunpowder–proof of the shots having been fired at close quarters. There were two bullet wiounds–one under the sixth rib and the other under the fourth. The lower bullet penetrated the lung and the upper one the heart. The latter would cause instantaneous death.–In reply to the Coroner witness said when the first effect of a drug worked off very great depression, almost amounting to melancholia, supervened. He had not doubt the wounds were self-inflicted.–The Coroner having reviewed the evidence, the jury deliberated in private about 20 minutes, when the Foreman said their verdict was that deceased comitted suicide when under the influence of morphia.–Mr. Le Boeuf said that was not a unanimous decision. For his own part he thought deceased was temporarily insane at the time.–The Foreman observed that he would also have liked the jury to have come to that conclusion, but the majority seemed in favour of the verdict. Dr. Middlemist said there was not the least doubt the man was temporarily insane. At the time he was not under the influence of morphia, but was suffering from the effects of that drug. The jury, however, did not alter their decision. In answer to Mr. Le Boeuf, the Coroner said the verdict amounted to practically the same thing as temporary insanity. In thanking the jury for so patiently listening to the evidence, Mr. Phillips remarked that the regretted there had been some little friction amongst them and that they had not come to a unanimous decision. He thought it was a case in which there was very little doubt according to the medical evidence as to what the verdict should have been, and he considered their verdict rather a remarkable one.

The funeral of the deceased took place at Great Casterton on Monday, and was attended by a large concourse. The Revs. Canon Williams and G. Steer (Vicar of Ryhall) officiated.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1900.

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.

Following last week’s post, more is revealed about the female husband found in Manchester. Apparently, female husbands have been known for centuries. A recent book by Jen Manion comprises dozens of anecdotes and narratives detailing the lives of people who were considered girls at birth but who adopted masculine names and loved and lived with female wives. Also, Henry Fielding’s novel, ‘The female husband’, fictionalised the life of Mrs. Mary, alias Mr. George, Hamilton.

“THE WOMAN HUSBAND.–Subsequent enquiries confirm the truth of the statements made in the Manchester Guardian of the 11th, as to this singular case. This woman-man who for probably more than 25 years has succeeded in concealing her sex, and in pursuing a trade of a more than ordinarily masculine and hazardous description, with a degree of skill and ability which has led to her establishment in a good business in Manchester, bound herself apprentice, at the age of 16 or 17 years, to a Mr. Peacock, a bricklayer and builder at Bawtry, a small market town in the West Riding of Yorkshire, on the River Idle, which separates the counties of York and Nottingham. She did not remain with Mr. Peacock during the whole period of her apprenticeship, but was ‘turned over,’ as it is called, to another person in the same business. It was during her apprenticeship that she met with her present wife ; and they were married at the old parish church of Sheffield, in the year 1816, when the wife was only 17 years of age. Since the investigation and disclosure of the circumstances on Thursday week, the wife and husband have separated. The latter was for many years a special constable, in the 13th division of that body ; acting for Manchester ; and we are assured that, on all occasions where the services of the division were required, as at elections, orange processions, meetings of trades’ unions, turn-outs, &c. &c., so far from absenting herself, from what, as in the case of well-grounded apprehensions of a riot, must have been, to a woman, a post of some unpleasantness, she is remembered to have been one of the most punctual in attendance, and the most forward volunteer in actual duty, in that division. We understand that she is only no longer a special constable, because she did not, on the last annual special session, held for that purpose at the New Bailey, present herself to be re-sworn. She was not discarded or discharged ; there was no complaint against her ; and probably the extension of her own business was her only motive for not resuming the duties of this office. Altogether, this is by far the most singular case of the kind which has ever reached our knowledge. The celebrated Chevalier D’Eon was not married ; and James Davis (so-called), the discovery of whose sex took place only after death, had not been married for so long a period as the woman whose case is now under notice. There, too, the discovery was made too late to obtain from the party herself any clue to the motives which led her to so unfeminine a course of deception ; but here both parties to the supposed marriage are alive, and the one who assumed the male sex is still alive to give, if she chooses, the true history of her reasons or fancy for laying aside the garb and character of her own, and assuming the appearance, and undertaking the toil, of the other sex, which would certainly be a very curious chapter of biography.–Manchester Guardian of Saturday last.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

Female husband: lesbian, transvestite or woman seeking worthwhile employment and enjoying the benefits of a wife at home? What would Queen Victoria have made of this, bearing in mind that she refused to believe lesbianism existed ?

“FEMALE HUSBAND.–In the Manchester Times of the 8th inst. was a paragraph to the following effect :–“UNFOUNDED REPORT:–A silly report has been industriously propagated this week, to the effect that a respectable female in this town has been married for about 17 years to a person who, within the last few days, is discovered to be a woman. As it was not impossible for such a circumstance to have occurred, although very improbable, we had curiosity enough to make inquiries on the subject and find that the alleged ‘remarkable discovery’ was a gross fabrication.”–We, too, (Manchester Guardian,) have had curiosity enough to make inquiries on the subject, and find that the “unfounded report” of the “remarkable discovery, which, though not impossible, is very improbable,” is true. All the circumstances communicated to us relative to this singular case we do not feel justified in publishing ; but we may mention a few of the principal facts connected with what is here known of the history of this chevalier d’Eon in humble life, of course suppressing the names of the parties. A few days ago a respectable female waited upon an attorney in this town, and asked his advice in a case of a very peculiar nature. It seems that her husband, a master bricklayer, who had been in the habit of trusting her implicitly in his business, even leaving to her management the book-keeping requisite in his trade, had of late, had some cause or other, refused to allow her the weekly usual sum for housekeeping. Having also, in other respects, treated her as she considered in an unkind manner, she came to take advice as to how she could proceed, under the circumstances, against her husband, whom, to the no small astonishment of the professional gentleman she was then consulting, she declared to be, not a man, but a woman. The attorney thought it his duty, under such singular circumstances, to bring the matter under the notice of Mr. Foster, the magistrate, who directed that Mr. Thomas should take the case under his management, and bring the parties for private examination before him (Mr. Foster) at the police-office. Mr. Thomas took the necessary steps ; and on Thursday last the parties were brought before Mr. Foster, in the deputy-constable’s room at the police-office, when the truth of the wife’s averment to the attorney, was corroborated in the most distinct and unqualified manner by Mr Ollier, surgeon to the police, who gave a certificate declaring the individual in question was a woman. The woman-husband, we believe, did not make the least attempt to deny her sex, but contented herself with stating that her wife had only been led to make this exposure because she had withheld from her the weekly allowance of money for housekeeping expenses. The wife replied that this was not the only cause of complaint against her spouse, for that she (the husband) was occasionally intoxicated, and that, when in that state, treated her very ill. The wife also stated that she accidentally made the discovery of the sex of her husband as much as two or three years back, but that she kept the secret to the present time.

From what could be gleaned of the history of this female husband, it would seem that she assumed the garb and character of a boy at an early age, and that in that character she was apprenticed, at the age of 16 or 17, to a master builder, in one of the large towns of Yorkshire. Being of good exterior, with prepossessing appearance and manners, and of features rather handsome, the supposed young man attracted the attention of many females in the same condition of life ; and, amongst others, was the one who afterwards became the wife. The attentions of the young bricklayer was [sic] acceptable and accepted ; and the union took place shortly after the expiration of the apprenticeship. Soon afterwards this couple came to Manchester, about the year 1829, where the husband commenced the business of a builder, and by considerable ability and attention to trade was tolerably successful. Amongst other branches of the business, this builder became remarkable, indeed almost to celebrity, for skill and success in the erection of flues, ovens, &c. ; and we believe is at this moment in very good business, employing several hands, and giving very general satisfaction to those for whom any work has been executed. The wife had the entire management of the books and accounts in the business, and, as far as we have heard, there was not the slightest imputation on her character. We believe that nothing was done in the way of legal proceedings. Several articles claimed by the wife as her property have been sent to the police-office by the husband, who, so far as we have heard, has not offered any reparation to the wife for the cruel and painful position in which she is now placed. One thing is now certain, that after the exposure which has taken place, and the affair was currently talked of as early as Thursday and Friday last, the woman who has ventured to assume the character of a man will no longer be able to continue to carry on business in this town, and that she must either lay aside her disguise and resume the appearance which most befits her sex, or if she will retain her unfeminine appearance and character, she must seek to hide her imposture in some place where she is not known, and where she may hope for a while to escape detection. We believe that many persons who have employed her join in declaring that they had not the slightest suspicion that she was other than what she seemed.

It is somewhat remarkable that this is not the first case of this nature which has been brought under the notice of Mr. Thomas. In January, 1829, a labourer in the service of Mr. Crisp, shipbuilder, at Dockhead, London, while assisting in sawing a log of fir, was struck by the severed part of the log with such force on the head as to die of the injury while being conveyed to St. Thomas’s Hospital. On stripping the body to prepare it for interment, it was discovered that the deceased, who was about 38 years of age, was a woman. She had been known for about 22 years to have filled various situations, as groom, shipwright’s labourer, and other subordinate occupations in dock-yards, vitriol-works, &c., and had been 21 years married, and her wife declared in the most solemn manner, on the inquest, and before the police-magistrates at Bow-street, that during the whole of that period she had been in utter ignorance of the real sex of her supposed husband.–Manchester Guardian.”

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.

It appears the early Victorians loved to hear about blood and gore. This report of a horrendous murder in Easton-on-the Hill revels in the details of the victim’s wounds.

“Murder at Easton, near Stamford. – On Tuesday morning last, about four o’clock, a shocking murder was perpetrated on the person of Elizabeth Longfoot, a maiden lady, residing in her own house, near the church in the above village. The unfortunate victim’s mother died about twelve months ago, since which time she has lived alone, notwithstanding she laboured under an aberration of mind, in which state she would frequently wander about the village at untimely hours. It was on her return from one of these wanderings that the unfortunate creature met her fate. The wretches who imbrued their hands in her blood appear to have entered the house in her absence, at the kitchen window, the centre part of which they had broken and opened, but finding a strong iron bar down the middle, which prevented their ingress, they took out the whole side of the window, and so effected an entrance. They then procured a bunch of keys belonging to the poor woman and left in the house, and proceeded to ransack all the drawers in search of treasure. From the penurious habits and a small independent property possessed by the deceased, it was said she had money secreted in the house. Whilst the search was going on, it would appear she returned home, and was knocked down with a bludgeon just as she passed the outer gate: her body was then dragged within the door of her house, where on Tuesday morning she was found weltering in her gore, quite dead. The blood had flowed profusely where she fell, and on each side of the body appeared the imprint of a man’s knee in corduroy breeches, who had hastened her death by gripping her throat. The wound on the left temple was not above half an inch in length, but the blood had flowed so freely as to leave a pool under her head and completely saturate and fill her bonnet and cap. In consequence of three persons being already apprehended on suspicion of having committed the murder, and warrant being issued for the apprehension of others, it was deemed essential to the ends of justice not to report the evidence taken on the inquest, which was held at the Bell Inn at Easton on Wednesday, before Thos. Marshall, Gent. of Kettering, a coroner for Northamptonshire, but we were able to gather the following particulars:- Henry Mitchell and Samuel Mitchell, two young men residing nearly opposite Mrs. Longfoot’s house, heard about four o’clock in the morning the cry of ‘murder’ three times repeated by the deceased, and the latter distinctly heard what he is now convinced was the fatal blow; but they took no notice of it, as they had been long accustomed to hear her make similar noises during the night. Two brothers named Thompson, residing a little higher up the hill in the village, state that they heard her come home about four o’clock, and when she arrived at her gate she exclaimed ‘You villains, I’ll swear my life against you in the morning;’ and instantly she cried out ‘Murder, murder, murder.’ On this they got up and came into the street, where they stood for some time listening, and saw a light carried about the rooms: they advanced to the house, and just as they got to the gate, the door was shut to and locked, as they supposed by the deceased, on which they went away. – On the day of the murder, the Rev. C. Atlay and Dr. Hopkinson, magistrates for Northamptonshire, investigated all the circumstances then brought to light, and also examined several witnesses, which led to the apprehension of three brothers named Archer, residents in Easton, William a shoemaker, and John and James labourers, who were lodged in Stamford gaol on Tuesday night for further examination. On a post-mortem examination of the body by M. W. Jackson, Esq. on Wednesday, the marks of the fingers of the murderer on the neck of the deceased were distinctly observed, and it is believed that her death ensued from strangulation: her age was 54: the brain was in a healthy and perfect state, except as to one part, which is supposed to have occasioned her insanity. The inquest was adjourned by coroner till Tuesday the 13th Inst. Yesterday morning, a young man of Easton, named Andrew Porter, a baker was apprehended, and after examination before the magistrates, was committed to Oundle gaol for further examination t0-morrow at ten o’clock.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th March, 1838.

We know smoking is horrible, but this diatribe looks at the possible effect on the lungs, as well as almost everything else!

“The propensity to smoking is declared by the physicians to be actually one of the most efficient causes of the German tendency to diseases of the lungs. In point of expense, its waste is enormous. In Hamburgh alone 50,000 boxes of cigars have been consumed in a year, each box costing about 3l. sterling: 150,000l. puffed into the air! And it is to be remembered, that even this is but a part of the expense; the cigar adorning the lip only of the better order, and even among those, only of the young; the mature generally abjuring this small vanity, and blowing away with the mighty Egyptian plague of frogs, is felt every where and in every thing. It poisons the streets, the clubs, and the coffee houses; furniture, clothes, equipage, person are redolent of the abomination. It makes even the dullness of the newspaper doubly narcotic; that napkin on the table, tells instantly that native hands have been over it; every eatable and drinkable, all that can be seen, felt, heard, or understood, is saturated with tobacco; the very air we breathe is but a conveyance for this poison into the lungs; and every man, woman and child, rapidly acquires the complexion of a boiled chicken. From the hour of their waking, if nine-tenths of the population can ever be said to be awake at all, to the hour of their lying down, which in innumerable instances the peasantry do in their clothes, the pipe is never out of their mouths; one mighty fumigation reigns, and human nature is smoke-dried buy tens of thousands of square miles. ~But if it be a crime to shorten life, or extinguish faculties, the authority of the chief German physiologists charges this custom with effecting both in a very remarkable degree. They compute that of twenty deaths of men between eighteen and thirty-five, ten originate in the waste of the constitution by smoking. The universal weakness of the eyes, which makes the Germans par excellence a spectacled nation, is probably attributed to the same cause of the general nervous debility. Tobacco burns out their blood, their teeth, their eyes, and their brains; turns their flesh into mummy, and their mind into metaphysics. – From a Journal of the Defence of Hamburgh in 1813.”

The Stamford Mercury, 30th November, 1832.