Part 14

'I, Thomas Head, alias Williams, now under sentence of death in Newgate, do solemnly confess and declare the foregoing statement and confession of John Bishop, which has been made in my presence, and since read over to me distinctly, is altogether true, so far as the same relates to me. I declare that I was never concerned in, or privy to, any other transaction of the like nature--that I never knew anything of the murder of any other person whatever--that I was never a body-snatcher, or concerned in the sale of any other body than the three murdered by Bishop and myself--that May was a stranger to me, and I had never seen him more than once or twice before Friday the 4th of November last--and that May was wholly innocent and ignorant of any of those murders in which I was concerned, and for one of which I am about to suffer death.

'THOMAS HEAD.'

'Witness, R. ELLIS, 'Newgate, December 4, 1831.'

'The above confessions taken literally, from the prisoners, in our presence,

'T. WOOD, } 'R. ELLIS,} Under-Sheriffs.'

In regard to this confession of Bishop, we may be allowed to offer a few cursory remarks, and particularly as we have, on another occasion, laid before the public the confessions of Holloway, two of which were given, as he himself expressly declares, for the express purpose of misleading the judicial authorities of the country, with the avowed aim of saving the life of his guilty accomplice, and in which, with shame be it spoken, he too well succeeded. A voluntary confession of a criminal, standing almost at the foot of the scaffold, ought to be received with the utmost degree of caution and distrust; but in the case of the confession of Bishop, the most singular feature of the case is, that part of it has actually been believed and acted upon, whilst another part is wholly rejected, and declared to be false, although no documentary evidence has been brought forward to prove it such. In regard, however, to confessions in general, it really appears to us, that every magistrate, who has a prisoner to examine, thinks it his duty to set himself, with all his skill, to prevent the discovery of the truth from the only person, who, although he may strive to disguise, knows completely the facts of the case. This custom has no sanction in law, is repugnant to common sense, and contrary to the practice of all other nations, whose criminal codes are, generally speaking, in a more perfect state, and are certainly much more humane than our own. A man charged with an offence ought not to be compelled to confession by the promise of pardon; but is there no difference between this and actually urging him to silence against his will, as a method of escape, though he may have committed the offence? We are really sick of reading examinations, every part and portion of which are made up of injunctions to the accused, to do and say nothing whatever that can by any possibility injure his chance of eluding justice. The following, in our opinion, ought to be the practice:--All hints of advantage to the accused from confession--all recommendations to confess being cautiously abstained from; what he has to say, or chooses voluntarily to say, should be received in silence, and no obstruction thrown in his way; and, after all, what do these confessions amount to? They are but too frequently a tissue of falsehood and truth, calculated to mislead the jury, and cast a doubt upon the positive facts of the case. In all cases of confession, however, after conviction, the circumstances under which the confession is given should be particularly taken into consideration before any decisive opinion is formed as to its falsity or truth. From the nature of these circumstances a clue may be obtained to the motive which prompts the individual to make the confession, and on which depends, in a great degree, its claim to our credibility and confidence. The motive which prompted Bishop to make his confession could not have had any relationship with the hope of its saving him from an ignominious death; and it is not rational to believe that a man, under his circumstances, would make a confession for the mere purpose of deceiving, when he must have been fully conscious to himself, that not the slightest benefit could accrue to him. In the confession of Bishop there is an evident attempt to shake the verdict of the jury, to throw a doubt upon the administration of justice, and to agitate the public mind, and, as such, we would receive it with the utmost distrust; but the most striking peculiarity of the case is, that the main circumstances of it are corroborated by an accomplice, who could not have been actuated by any flattering motive to confirm the testimony already given, and who was actually ignorant at the time of the exact tenor of the circumstances detailed in the confession as given by Bishop. The confessions of Williams and Bishop were given to different individuals, in different places, but nearly at the same time, the chief question then to be decided is, had any previous agreement been entered into between these individuals as to the nature of the confession which they were to make? for unless such agreement had been entered into, the statement put forth by one of them, and corroborated in every particular by the other, supposing no previous collusion to exist, is certainly entitled to a great share of our belief. It is certain that the confession of Bishop made a very strong impression on the public mind, and to qualify the effect of it, Mr. Corder put forth a written statement to the public, which will be given in another part of the work; and the aim of which was to demonstrate, that the last words of Bishop and Williams were false. The whole gist of Mr. Corder's statement rests on the following syllogism:--

Bishop confesses to the murder of a Lincolnshire boy, No Lincolnshire boy has been missing; _Ergo_--No Lincolnshire boy has been murdered.

Bishop, however, does not confess to the murder of the Italian boy, but he says, that the corpse which was taken, as it may be said, upon him, was not that of Carlo Ferrari, but of a Lincolnshire youth, who had been entrapped into their snares, as described both by Bishop and Williams. It must be also remarked, that the identity of the body of the Italian boy was never fully established; in fact, the chief witness who was brought forward to depose to the fact, declared positively that he could not swear it was the body of Carlo Ferrari, but that _it was very like it_. If we examine the majority of the confessions made by convicted criminals, we shall generally find them destitute of all truth. The confession of Fauntleroy was a confession of being _innocent_ of almost all the forgeries he had committed; and it is rather remarkable, that the chief murderer of Mr. Steele, upwards of thirty years ago, was JOHN HOLLOWAY, and the most just verdict which was pronounced against him and his accomplice, Owen Haggarty, was attempted to be invalidated after their execution, on account of the confession made by the latter. A variety of opinions still exists in regard to the truth of Bishop's confession; but we shall here close our remarks, with the brief observation, that we do not perceive what right, in a Protestant Church, either priest or magistrate has to urge a convict to make a confession; for we are convinced, that if a confession before conviction be of little worth, the confession afterwards is almost universally false.

There was, however, one circumstance connected with the confession of Williams, which subjected the worthy Ordinary of Newgate to public animadversion; and, subsequently, to an examination of his conduct before the Court of Aldermen.

It appears, that whilst Williams was making his confession to the Rev. Mr. Williams, of Hendon, the Rev. Ordinary stepped in, and put an end to all further disclosure from the mouth of Williams, which act was construed into one of supererogation on the part of Mr. Cotton, incompatible with his clerical character, and at variance with the promotion of the ends of justice. This circumstance was brought before the public in the following letter, addressed to the editor of a morning paper:--

'SIR,

'Can you inform me by what authority the Rev. Mr. Cotton interposed to suppress the confessions of the two murderers? Were they, in consequence, better qualified to receive from him that spiritual instruction which he professes to give, or had he any other motive by which his conduct was actuated?

'I am, Sir, your obedient servant, JAMES STONE.

'_Dec. 10._'

This letter produced the following one from Mr. Under-Sheriff Wood, addressed to the Editor of the same paper:--

'SIR,

'I read in your paper this morning a letter signed "James Stone," requesting to be informed "by what authority the Rev. Mr. Cotton interposed to suppress the confessions of the two murderers." That letter is dated December 10, but has not the address of the writer. Will you be so obliging as to furnish it to me, in order that the Sheriffs may ascertain upon what authority it was written, and whether there is any foundation for the imputation it is intended to convey? Till then, it must be obvious to Mr. Stone that he cannot receive an answer.

'I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 'THOMAS WOOD, Under-Sheriff.

'_Little St. Thomas Apostle, Dec. 12._'

By the letter of Mr. Wood, he seemed to intimate that the Sheriffs were disposed to institute a solemn inquiry into the conduct of the Ordinary. If, however, they could suppose that person capable of acting the monstrous part imputed to him, surely they would not have wanted such aid as the unknown letter-writer could be expected to supply, in order to induce them to bring his merits before the proper authorities. At all events, it was no very handsome compliment paid to the worthy Ordinary.

In explanation, however, of the conduct of Mr. Cotton, the following letter appeared in the same paper, and on the same day, as that of Mr. Under-Sheriff Wood:--

'SIR,

'By way of elucidation, relative to the letter inserted in your paper of this day, demanding by what authority the Rev. Mr. Cotton interposed to suppress the confessions of the two murderers, and signed "James Stone," I beg to inform you, that whilst the Rev. Mr. Williams, of Hendon, was listening to the confession of Williams the murderer, Mr. Cotton went into the cell, and called out, "Come, come, Mr. Williams, what is all this about? I suppose you want to extract confessions with a view to publish them: let me converse with the criminal." Upon this unexpected and extraordinary interruption by the Ordinary, the Rev. Mr. Williams retired to another part of the room, and was much astonished. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

'A READER.

'_Paul's Chain, Dec. 12._'

Now there were but very few persons present when Williams is said to have been engaged in his confessions, and, of course, the writer of it could have been easily ascertained; but the publicity which had been given to the transaction induced the Court of Aldermen to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the Rev. Ordinary, and after a most minute investigation, he was fully exonerated from all the blame which had been imputed to him.

It may be here necessary to epitomize some parts of the confessions of Bishop and Williams, as it was on account of the concurrent testimony of those two individuals that a respite for May was ultimately obtained.

Bishop, during his interview with the Rev. Mr. Williams, had confessed to the commission of three murders, and he was proceeding to detail the particulars of a fourth, in which a black man, a negro, was the victim; and he was about to give the names of other parties who were implicated with him in the last-mentioned murder, when the interruption of the Rev. Ordinary already alluded to took place; nor could Mr. Williams, in the course of that interview, induce the convict to resume the thread of his narrative. The confessions, however, of Bishop and Williams both went to exculpate May from any participation in any of the murders. They both declared that May did not see the body, supposed to be the Italian boy, till the Friday evening, the day after the murder; they denied that their next door neighbour, Woodcock, could have heard any footsteps or scuffling, as he had described in his evidence; and they asserted, that, after hocussing the boy with laudanum in rum, he became as dead as a log. In that state they carried him to the well in the yard, and held his head under the water, till they were sure that he was completely suffocated. Previously to going into the yard for the above horrid purpose, they both took off their shoes.

They added, that, during the whole affair, there was no person in the lower part of the house, but themselves, Bishop and Williams, they having some time previously sent their wives to bed. The prisoners also denied the correctness of the medical testimony given on the trial. It will be remembered that the death of the boy was described in evidence, as having been occasioned by a blow inflicted during life on the back of the neck; whereas the prisoners asserted, that this appearance of a supposed deadly injury was occasioned by the twisting of the neck to force the corpse into the trunk, immediately after it was brought from the well. They also said that extravasation of blood, such as that described by the surgeons, always occurs when a body is thus doubled up while it is warm. Having received these confessions, and having heard the most solemn declarations from May of his innocence, the Rev. Mr. Williams and Mr. Wontner immediately waited upon Mr. Justice Littledale and Baron Vaughan, who had been present on the bench whilst the prisoners were tried by Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and who were still engaged in trying cases at the Old Bailey. On hearing the statements made by Mr. Wontner and the Rev. Mr. Williams, Baron Vaughan felt inclined to suggest to Chief Justice Tindal, the propriety of recommending that a respite should be granted to May. Mr. Justice Littledale believed, on the contrary, that the verdict was correct in the case of May, as well as those of Bishop and Williams, and that the law ought to take its course. The Rev. Mr. Williams and Mr. Wontner then waited upon Mr. Chief Justice Tindal at his residence, and upon communicating to him the statements which they had previously laid before Baron Vaughan and Mr. Justice Littledale, the Chief Justice said, he would, as early as possible, see the Home Secretary on the subject. This learned judge appeared to agree in opinion with Baron Vaughan. It was next ascertained that Lord Melbourne was not in town; but as a Cabinet Council was to be held at two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, no doubt was entertained that his lordship would attend officially, and that shortly previous to that hour, the Chief Justice would have an opportunity of conferring with him on the facts of this extraordinary case.

During the whole of Saturday, the sheriffs, under-sheriffs and several other official persons were decidedly opposed to any mitigation of the punishment of May, and indeed to any delay of his execution; and it was expected that the applications that were being made on his behalf would be frustrated by the positive opinions and predilections of some influential individuals. But on Sunday morning the sheriffs visited all three of the prisoners in succession; and the under-sheriffs, who are very intelligent men, were engaged between three and four hours in taking down the statements of the convicts; the consequence was, we understand, that the opinions of both sheriffs and under-sheriffs underwent a decided change, as to May being implicated in the crime of murder. They were consequently desirous that _his_ sentence should be mitigated. The result of all these investigations was, that on Sunday afternoon, at half-past four o'clock, a RESPITE during his Majesty's pleasure arrived at Newgate for May, and his sentence was commuted to transportation for life.

Shortly after the arrival of the respite at Newgate, Dr. Cotton and Mr. Wontner went to the room in which the three prisoners were confined for the day. The rev. gentleman opened the paper, and began to read it aloud. The most anxious attention was paid to its contents by all the prisoners; but the interest manifested by May, who must have known that the fate of his miserable companions was sealed, but had felt that there was still hope for him, was quite painful to witness. His agitation was dreadful; but no sooner had Dr. Cotton repeated the words, 'that the execution of the sentence upon John May shall be respited during His Majesty's most gracious pleasure,' than the poor wretch fell to the earth, as if struck by lightning. His arms worked with the most frightful contortions, and four of the officers of the prison could with difficulty hold him. His countenance assumed a livid paleness--the blood forsook his lips--his eyes appeared set, and pulsation at the heart could not be distinguished. All persons present thought that he could not possibly survive; it was believed, indeed, that the warrant of mercy had proved his death-blow.

Mr. Wontner and Dr. Cotton, who have of course witnessed many scenes of dreadful agitation during their experience among capital convicts, declare that they never before beheld any human being so fearfully affected. It was nearly a quarter of an hour before May was restored to the use of his faculties. At last, when recollection returned, he attempted to clasp his hands in the attitude of thanksgiving, but his limbs shook so violently that he found even that was impossible. His lips moved, but nothing but inarticulate sounds came from his tongue. The parties present soothed him with assurances that they knew what he meant to say, and with earnest entreaties that he would calm himself, and not attempt to speak. When restored to something like composure, May poured forth his gratitude to God, and his thanks to the humane gentlemen who had interested themselves in his behalf. He then explained, that when the reverend ordinary commenced reading the warrant, he thought that all hope was at an end--that the ceremony was to signify to him that he must die--the sudden revulsion of feeling, when he heard the words we have quoted, caused him to swoon. He added, that on learning that he was to be spared, he felt as if his heart had burst in his bosom. He declared most solemnly, now that he was out of jeopardy, as he had done before, that he had nothing to do with the murder for which he had been condemned to die. He had never been concerned--either directly or indirectly--in any murder; but acknowledged he had committed many sins for which the Almighty might justly have left him to suffer on this occasion. He hoped now to lead a better life, and to evince his gratitude to God by sincere repentance.

It will hardly be credited that Bishop and Williams beheld this awful scene with an indifference approaching to apathy. The dreadful agitation of their less guilty associate seemed to have no effect upon them, though it was remarked that the contortions of May must have brought to their recollections the struggles of some of their murdered victims.

May (who is a tall, light-haired, and rather good-looking man, about thirty years of age) is the natural son of a barrister, who formerly had chambers in the New Inn. His mother was a laundress in the chambers; she was particularly fond of her son, and when he was about twelve years of age she used to lead him about, fearful that any harm should come to him. He was educated at a boarding-school, and received a tolerable education; he wrote an excellent hand, and at the age of fourteen he was employed in a professional gentleman's office, at No. 10, in the New Inn; but he was always of a wild, roving disposition, and whenever he could get away from his duties he was associating with the worst of characters about Clare-market. This appeared to be his sole delight until he neglected the office altogether, and was consequently discharged. He had at the same time some good friends, who felt an interest in his welfare, but nothing could induce him to break off with his associates; and instead of remaining a clerk, which he was well adapted for, he took a liking to be a butcher. The first place he got was at Mr. Roberts's, in Clare-market, with whom he lived some time: he afterwards lived with Mr. Price, in the same market; but he never remained long in one place. At last he took up the trade of a 'body-snatcher;' and in order to carry on the business with the greatest facility, took a lodging in one of the houses in Clement's-lane, Strand, the back of which looks into the burying-ground, situated in Portugal-street, at the rear of St. Clement Danes' workhouse. Here he commenced business, and was very successful; but like many others, flushed by success, he could not keep his own secret, and would brag of the number of bodies he had got out of the burying-ground at the back of his lodgings of a night, and what sums he had sold them for. He at first made no secret of his profession, and considered it meritorious, till at last he found that he was detested and despised by every person. He then left that part of the town, and got acquainted with Bishop and his associates. May was always considered a lively, interesting fellow, fond of jokes, and ready for any mischief; but his disposition was not naturally cruel, and no person who knew him a few years ago could believe that he would be the accessary to take away the life of the humblest individual. May's mother is dead, but we believe his father is still living.

Williams was in custody not long since, charged with breaking into a house in a court situate near the Hackney-road, and stealing the corpse of a widow's son, a youth of sixteen or seventeen, who had died a day or two before. The poor woman had left her home for a short time only, and on her return found the corpse had, in the mean time, been stolen. Some of the female neighbours then recollected that while they were standing in the court shortly before, a man passed them with a basket containing something which smelt very offensively, and occasioned them to look particularly at the man, although they had no suspicion, until the alarm was given, that he was carrying off the corpse of the widow's son. A pursuit was immediately commenced, but without success. From the description given, however, a policeman apprehended Williams on the following morning, and he was identified by the females as the man whom they had seen near the house with a basket as stated. No trace of the body, nor of the manner in which it had been disposed of, could be discovered, nor any further evidence obtained, and, after an examination before a magistrate, the prisoner was discharged upon a recognizance. Williams was born at Highgate, and was apprenticed to a bricklayer; dissipation, however, led him to abandon his business and to become the associate of thieves; his conduct nearly ruined his mother; and after he had been repeatedly in custody on various charges of felony, about six year's since he was apprehended in Shoe-lane, selling a copper which he had stolen, and was convicted at the Old Bailey, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. Subsequently he was sent to the Penitentiary, which he left a few months since; and he then became a resurrectionist, and continued that horrid profession until apprehended. We understand he had only been married seven weeks previous to his apprehension.