From the Kentish Gazette, 30 April 1839.

Ramsgate.

An inquisition was held on Saturday se'nnight, before R. J. Emmerson, esq., at the "Camden Arms Inn," on the body of Henry Preston, a labourer, who was found dead in his bed the previous morning. It appeared by the evidence that he went to bed in good health, but complained to his wife in the morning of feeling unwell, who persuaded him to lie while she prepared his breakfast, and on taking it up stairs, found him a corpse. The jury returned a verdict of' "Died by the visitation of God."

Also on the same day, on the body of Charles Wittenton, a fisherman, who was found drowned in the basin of this harbour on the day previous. The evidence in this case showed that he came on board his boat, (which was laden with oysters and belonging to Dover) late the previous evening, much intoxicated, and it is supposed fell over the side while in that state, without being observed, as he was not missed until he was found the following morning at low water under the boat's bottom.

A verdict of "found drowned" was recorded.

Kentish Gazette, 7 May 1844.

RAMSGATE.

An inquisition was held at Crisford’s, "Camden Arms Inn," on Wednesday, before R. J. Emmerson, coroner, on the body of James Kingsford, a child four years of age, who came by his death under the following circumstances, as by the evidence adduced:-

The day previous (Tuesday) the mother of the child was out at work as a laundress, in Bell Vue Place, and with two other children, was playing near a well in an area at the back of the house, which had not been lately used, the lid of which was in a very dilapidated state, and it is supposed he jumped on the lid, which gave way, and was suffocated by the foul air which the well contained. An alarm was immediately given by the other children, and a labourer, named Gorham, was let down by a rope obtained from the next house, who brought the child up quite dead. The man Gorham also fainted from exhaustion on his getting out, but by means of brandy was speedily restored.

A verdict of "Accidental Death" was recorded.

Kentish Gazette, 16 July 1844.

RAMSGATE. Daring Robbery.

On Monday evening, Mr. Burke, a well-known commercial traveller, of the firm of Swaine and Co., distillers, London, was proceeding from Hodges’ "Castle Hotel," to the "Camden Arms," St. George’s Steps he was accosted by a respectably-dressed female, when two men, who were in ambush a short distance from the spot, rushed upon him and held his arms, when the woman forced her hand in his pocket and abstracted a purse, containing 108 sovereigns, and ran away. He made a grasp at her dress, and tore away a piece of habit shirt which he held tight, and immediately gave an alarm to the police on duty, who with their usual vigilance, succeeded the following morning in tracing the party to the "Honeysuckle," at Hereson. On the woman being questioned as to her torn habit shirt, she said her husband had done it last week, but on comparing it, it exactly matched both in the rent of the muslin and pattern to the piece, given by Mr. Burke to the police the previous evening. She was taken into custody, together with a man and woman who were found in her company, and was examined before the magistrates on Tuesday, who remanded them all to Sandwich for safe custody till their final hearing. One sovereign only was found on the woman.

From the Kentish Gazette, 14 November 1848.

RAMSGATE.

The Members of the "Ramsgate Forty Pounds Burial Society" held their seventh annual meeting, on Wednesday week, at the "Camden Arms Inn,” Camden Place, for the purpose of electing fresh officers for the ensuing year, declaring the state of the funds, the members’ deaths, and other transactions of the Committee during the preceding year. It appeared, by the Secretary's report, that after all the amount of expenses there is upwards of £100 in the Savings Bank, — and, that since the commencement of the Club, in November, 1841, there have been 38 deaths — for which the large sum of £1520 has been paid to the relatives of the deceased members, showing at once the great good derivable from persons associating themselves together for mutual benefit to their families, and that too, at a time of their greatest need. There are vacancies for a few members, to complete the number of 420; persons of either sex are eligible, who are in sound health, and under 40 years of age. It behoves those who appreciate the value of such societies to avail themselves of an early opportunity of being enrolled as members. After the business of the Club had been gone through, the remainder of the evening was spent in good fellowship and harmony.

Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 8 December 1863.

Ramsgate. "Camden Arms Inn."

To be let - Possession of Christmas - this old established Inn, in a good and improving neighbourhood.

Apply to Friend and Vinton, Auctioneers, Ramsgate.

From the Kentish Gazette, 15 August 1865.

MURDER OF THREE CHILDREN.

On Saturday week a respectably-dressed man called at the "Star coffee-house and Hotel," in Red Lion-street, Holborn, and enquired if three children could be a accommodated with a bed for a few nights. Being informed that one room would be unoccupied, he said that the children were respectively six, eight, and ten years old, and that the accommodation would be sufficient. He called again on the Monday evening with the children, and saw them to bed. He told the proprietor of the house that they were about to proceed to Australia, and that the accommodation would only be required for a few days. The next morning the children were downstairs by half-past 6. They were very cheerful, and waited in the coffee-room until the arrival of the person who had brought them, which was before 8 o clock. After breakfast he left, but he returned at 1 o'clock, when the children dined, and he again left, saying he would see them in the evening. About 6 o’clock he came again, and the children had tea and bread and butter. He said that, as they might be tiresome, he would take them to bed in the first place, however, inquiring if another room could be provided. This he was told he could have, when he went upstairs and put the children to bed, the two younger in the room formerly occupied by them, and the eldest in the other room. He then went out, saying he would shortly be back, and he made his appearance at 9 o’clock. He asked for a candle to see that the children were all right, and after remaining upstairs a short time left the house, saying that he would return in the morning. He did not, however, make his appearance, and as the children were downstairs early the previous morning, some doubt existed as to whether they should be awakened. Half-past 8 arrived, when one of the chambermaids entered the first room in which the two younger children were placed in bed, and, to her extreme horror, found they were dead. She immediately raised an alarm, when the proprietors and others entered the room in which the eldest child had been placed, and there found that he also was dead.

The appearance of the bodies clearly showed that they had expired without much struggling, if any. That is borne out to a great extent from the fact that the youngest child has firmly clinched in his hand a halfpenny. Medical assistance was at once sent for, and the three children were pronounced to have been dead some hours.

The children when brought to the hotel were not well-dressed, but their manners were good. They conversed with a waiting boy, and said during the conversation that the person who brought them there was not their father. They were taken from their father either to go to school or abroad. On each occasion when the suspected murderer left he apologized for the trouble the children might cause, but was assured that they were not at all in the way, which appeared to satisfy him. On each occasion he paid what was due. The eldest child told the waiting boy that their father believed they were dead, but gave no reason for such an expression. They chatted in a simple unconnected way until they went to bed.

The man who brought the children a the "Star Coffee-house" is believed to be a billiard-marker named Southey. He for some time has been living with a Mrs White, the wife of a schoolmaster, but separated from her husband.

The moment the news was communicated to Mr. Superintendent Searl he gave the necessary intelligence to Sir Richard Mayne, and also to Sir George Grey, and the latter at once despatched Inspectors Williamson and Tanner, of the detective department of Scotland-yard, in search of Southey. These officers had men placed on duty in plain clothes at nearly all the railway stations leading out of London to apprehend Southey if he should be seen, and there is no doubt, if he should make his appearance at any of the stations, especially on the Surrey side of the Thames, he will be easily captured, as he was well known in the neighbourhood of Putney and Wandsworth, where he held situations for several years. He was in the practice of betting at rowing matches and horse races, and is well known among betting men. There is, therefore, strong ground for supposing that he will be quickly in the hands of the police. Several betting men who attended the rowing match on Tuesday at Putney are sure they saw Southey on the towing-path. Mrs. White, it is said, was not aware of anything that had taken place, and it is stated that she was remarkably fond of the children.

A reward of £100 was offered for the apprehension of the supposed murderer by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

He is thus described:— Age between 35 and 40 years, by profession a billiard marker; height, 5ft. 7in.; hair, dark; eyes, dark gray; no whiskers, but a beard of several days' growth; dressed in dark clothes, and a vest buttoned up to the chin; a black, shabby-looking scarf.

DOUBLE MURDER AT RAMSGATE BY THE SAME MAN.

The horror occasioned by the narration of the triple murder in Holborn was increased on Thursday by the news of a double murder at Ramsgate, by the man Southey, alias Forward, who had killed the three children in Holborn.

On Thursday morning, shortly after nine o’clock, Ramsgate was thrown into a state of intense excitement by a report that a man named Stephen Forward had committed a double murder in a dyer’s house in King-street. Unfortunately, upon inquiry this rumour proved only too true. It appears that Forward, who was formerly a baker in the town, left Ramsgate some eight years ago, leaving his wife and a little girl behind him in a state of almost destitution. From time to time anonymous letters have been sent to his wife, some of which have contained small sums of money. On Wednesday evening Forward suddenly appeared in Ramsgate and made his arrival known to his wife. He requested her to take a walk with him, but she declined, giving as a reason that as he had been away for some years he was a comparative stranger, and she did not like being seen out in the evening with strangers. She then invited him to go into the house of a person named Ellis, a dyer, residing in King Street. Forward accepted the invitation, and they remained talking in the presence of Mr. Ellis and his daughter for some time. In consequence, however, of Forward having twice stated that he had something to say to his wife, and which he could not say in the presence of strangers, Mr. Ellis and his daughter left the room, but went into the shop which adjoins it. After the lapse of half an hour, the wife came into the shop and said that her husband had promised to come again the following morning. Mr. Ellis then went into the sitting-room, and Forward then repeated the promise he had formerly made to his wife, and added that he would call shortly after eight o’clock. He sat down for some time, and told his wife and Mr. Ellis about the trials he had had to undergo during the time he had been away from her. He further said that he had been abroad, and that while away he had saved a sum of £1,170, but had been done out of the whole of it. He then, after renewing his promise to come again the next morning, left. On Thursday morning, about twenty minutes past eight, Forward went to Ellis’s house. His wife was there, having some breakfast with Mr. Ellis and his daughter. He was asked if he would take any breakfast, but he declined. He sat down and commenced talking. Shortly before nine Ellis went into his workshop, and while there his daughter told Forward and his wife that if they had anything to say in private they might go upstairs. They both went upstairs, and had not been there many minutes before the daughter of Forward went up to them. She had hardly got there when Mr. Ellis and his daughter were startled by two rapid reports of a pistol, and on the latter rushing upstairs she arrived at the landing just in time to see Forward’s daughter fall down dead, she having been shot by the prisoner. She then called out to her father, who immediately came in, and on rushing upstairs he saw Forward standing at the top of the stairs, just in the sitting-room. He said "What have you done, Forward?" and seeing that he had a pistol in his hand, he called on him to give it to him, which he did. Forward then had a black moustache and dark whiskers on. Ellis then saw the feet of Forward’s wife, and on looking over the table he saw her head, and that blood was oozing therefrom. He told Forward to sit down, and he then perceived that he had neither moustache nor whiskers. He asked Forward where they were, and he replied that they were under the grate. He looked there, hut could not find them, and Forward then gave them to him. He then called out to send for the police and a surgeon. Forward added "Yes, send for a policeman." He was then given into custody.

EXAMINATION BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES.

At twelve o’clock at noon Forward was brought before the magistrates, charged with the murder of his wife and child.

Previous to the calling of any witnesses, the prisoner, addressing the magistrates, said:- I have here a paper to Sir Richard Mayne, which I hope you will permit me to read to you. I have a reason for it. If you will grant me the favour I think you will see that my reason justifies me in asking it. Immediately I was brought to the station-house I asked for some paper, a pen, and some ink, that I might draw up this statement, but it is not yet finished. I also made a statement to the inspector in charge. I inquired whether he had heard of the manner of three children in London. (Sensation.) I hope this may be taken as a communication to Sir Richard Mayne, and also that it is made quite voluntarily.

The Chairman:- You had better wait until such time as we have heard the evidence.

William Ellis was then called, and deposed to the facts as above stated. He added, that when he asked Forward what he had done, the prisoner replied, "I can tell you this, Mr. Ellis, she is relieved from all trouble and care. I have done an act of charity."

Mr. Ellis remarked, "What, after committing a double murder?"

"Yes," he replied, "and I can tell you she has less to bear now, for I shall be under sentence of death when I get back to London."

The magistrates having decided to adjourn the case till Saturday, the prisoner again addressing the magistrates earnestly begged of them to allow him to read the statement he had prepared while in custody, which they acceded to. The statement which the prisoner made, though not very lengthy, was lucid and pathetic, and brought tears into the eves of many in court. To the Earl of Dudley or Dudley Ward he ascribed all his misfortunes, and then he with emphasis used the names of Lord Palmerston, Lord Derby Lord Stanley, and all the nobility. He freely admitted taking the children to the house in Holborn, and then murdering them, assigning as his reason the treatment he had been subjected to at the hands of Earl Dudley.

The magistrates then adjourned the case until Saturday.

The following is the statement above referred to:—

August 10, Police-station, Ramsgate.

On Monday, the 7th inst., I took three children whom I claim as mine by the strongest ties to the "Star Coffee-house," Holborn. I felt for these children all the affection that a parent could feel. I had utterly worn out aid exhausted every power of mind and body in my efforts to secure a home and a future for those children, and also other five persons who doubtless were dependent on me. I could struggle and bear up no longer, for the last support had been withdrawn from me. My sufferings were no longer supportable. The last hope had perished by my bitter painful experience of our present inquisitions, defective social justice. I shall be charged with their murder — with their criminal murder in the truest and strongest sense of the charge. I deny and repudiate that charge, and throw it back on the men who have by their gross criminal neglect so brought about this sad and fearful crime.

I charge back the guilt of the crime on those high dignitaries of the State, the Church, and justice who have turned a deaf ear to my heartbroken appeals, who have refused fellow help in all my frenzied efforts and exhausted struggles, and who have thereby impiously denied the sacredness of human life, the mutual dependence of man, and the fundamental and sacred principles on which our social system itself is based. Foremost among these I charge the Hon. Lord Dudley, the Bishop of London, Sir Richard Mayne, Lord Palmerston, the Attorney-General, Sir George Grey. Mr. Gladstone, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord Eburv, Lord Townshend, Lord Elcho, Sir E. B. Lytton, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Lyttelton, Sir John Pakington, Lord Derby, Lord Stanley, Sir Francis Crossley, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Under all the terrible run of my life. I did the very best.

HISTORY OF THE ALLEGED MURDERER.

The man Southey, alias Forward, is stated to be a person of good education and the son of respectable parents. He was at one time a writer in a law office, and during his leisure hours he frequented billiard-rooms. He became an accomplished gambler, and in progress of time a thorough blackleg and swindler. Giving up all regular avocations, he made it his practice to visit the different watering-places, and, dressing in the most fashionable style, to throw himself in the way of rich young men and fleece them at his pleasure. It is said that at the present moment several hundred pounds won in this way are still due to him by various gentlemen; indeed the name of one nobleman is given who is indebted to him for a sum of nearly £200.

In the course of his career he made the acquaintance of Mrs. White, the wife of a schoolmaster living at Feather-stone-buildings, Holhorn. His own account of his meeting with her was that one evening he saw her weeping and evidently contemplating suicide on the pier at Margate, and that he felt impelled to ask her the cause of her troubles. She disclosed to him such a history of domestic misery that he felt himself called upon as a man of common humanity to accord her his protection, and assist her in every way. But the real facts as to the origin of the discreditable connection were not at all so romantic, according to other and more reliable accounts. It is said that he seduced her while she was living with her husband, and at a time not long subsequent to her marriage. The children whom he has now so ruthlessly slain, are believed to have been all his, although they were born under the roof of the adulteress’s husband. On three different occasions, however, she left her husband’s home to go and live with her paramour. Indeed, her character was known to be the reverse of respectable. Her course of living was an abandoned one, and it is said that she had liaisons with other men. But her guilty passion for Southey was nevertheless real, and she finally left her home and her husband for him.

Southey and Mrs. White figured not long since in the extraordinary action against Lord Dudley, which is still within the recollection of the public, and the result being adverse to them they both went headlong to ruin. He became a billiard-marker, and continued to gamble, but having become known, he was not so successful as formerly. But nevertheless, Mrs. White, knowing that her children were in a state of semi-starvation, insisted that he should consent to their being brought to live with him and her. He reluctantly consented, and said that he would take them to Australia. Heavy losses in betting rendered his affairs completely ruinous, and he formed the diabolical plan of relieving himself of the maintenance of the three boys by murdering them. It is evident that he fancied he could get rid of the children by poison and escape detection by taking them to a coffee-house where he was totally unknown, and where he did not give his name, and there quietly poisoning them. The poison used is supposed to have been cyanide of potassium.

As a proof of the unsettled state of his affairs of late it may be mentioned that during the month of July he moved his lodgings no less than four times. He lived first at Rose Cottage, Putney; then at No. 2, Windsor-street, Putney; next at Elm Tree House, Putney; at lastly, at the "Cricketers’" public-house, Putney.

A telegram received from Ramsgate on Thursday evening, states that the murderer is in a state bordering on madness, and that he at times almost raves. He is evidently a man of strong and ferocious passions.

It appears that the servant girl at the "Star coffee-house," was passing the door of the room in which the eldest boy lay when the murderer was coming out of it on Tuesday night. She observed the pale and haggard appearance of the boy as he lay upon the bed, and she actually remarked to Southey "How pale that boy looks." Southey merely answered "Oh, that is no matter; he always looks that way." He then locked the door and went down stairs. The servant states that the boy looked as if he were asleep, but beyond all doubt he was then dead.

The facts in respect to Earl Dudley’s knowledge of Southey, to which reference is made above, are as follows:- It would appear that the man Southey had, as has been stated, at Brighton and other fashionable watering places, come, in the course of his gambling career, in contact with gentlemen of the highest respectability and position. Among them was the Hon. Dudley Ward, from whom Southey asserted that he had won £1,100 at billiards. Southey called on the Earl of Dudley and represented the matter to him, at the same time stating that he had called on his lordship because he was the head of the family, and he hoped he would pay the amount. The Earl of Dudley considered the matter, and told Southey that he could not think of paying his claim, for various reasons. In the first place he did not know that the money was actually due; and, in the next place, supposing it to be due, it was a gambling debt and could not be recovered in law. His lordship added that if I the claim had been made on a tradesman’s bill he would have paid it; but considering the nature of the debt, if he were to recognise it, his fortune would not be able to stand against such claims. He therefore declined to recognise it in any shape or way. A few days after the above interview, Southey met the earl at the railway station when he was about starting for Scotland, and again appealed to him to pay this gambling debt, whereupon the Earl of Dudley told him distinctly that he would not pay it, and gave Southey also to understand that if he again obtruded on his privacy he would hand him over to the police. From that time Southey never applied to his lordship for money until about six months afterwards, when he sent Mrs. White on the 12th of March, 1864. On that occasion Mrs. White sent up the name of the Countess of Shaftesbury, and Lord Dudley immediately came down to his library to see her. On entering the room he was surprised to find a stranger there, and inquired her business. She replied that she came from Mr. Southey for the money that was owing, to him from the Hon. Mr. Ward, and he (his lordship0) then most distinctly refused to recognise the debt, and ordered her to leave the house. He left the library, and some time afterwards returning, was extremely indignant to find that Mrs. White was still standing near the window. He again ordered her to leave the house, and she refused. He then took her by the arm and forced her towards the door, and, as she averred, hurt her very much, to prevent which she caught him by the whiskers. Eventually Earl Dudley got her into the hall and thrust her out of the house, for which she summoned him to the Hundred Petty Sessions at Worcester. The case was heard on the 2nd of April, by Sir F. G. Winnington, the Rev. C. J. Farley, the Rev. W. J. Raymond, the Rev. H. J. Hastings, and Mr. Edward Vernon. Having heard Mrs. White’s complaint against the Earl of Dudley and his answer to it, together with the evidence of a witness who proved that he used no more violence than was absolutely necessary for removing her from the premises, the bench unanimously decided on dismissing the summons. This appeared to weigh very heavily on the mind of Southey, who has ever since been brooding over what he fancied to be a wrong inflicted on himself, but it does not appear that he has again attempted to molest his lordship. Since that period Southey and Mrs. White have been in cohabition.

FURTHER PARTICULARS.

The state of excitement that existed till late on Thursday night in Ramsgate with reference to the murder of Mary Anne Jemima Forward and her daughter Emily, by Stephen Forward, the husband of one and father of the other of his last two victims, can be more easily imagined than described. Every one talked about it, every one thought about it, and not a few seemed scarcely able to realise the awful truth that had burst upon them, that one man had in cold blood sacrificed the lives of four innocent children, and of the woman he had sworn to love and cherish, and whom all who knew her respected, and those who knew her best, loved. The story of her life is a pitiable one — that of her murderer’s in accordance with its terrible sequel.

Stephen Forward, alias Ernest Southey, the self-accused murderer, whose admissions are valueless, as he was caught in the act, was born at St. Lawrence. The son of respectable parents in the middle walk of life, he was well educated, and at an early age apprenticed to a baker in the town. Thirteen years ago he obtained a baker’s business in King-street, by purchasing it from a Mr. Jones. Ever a restless spirit, never fond of laborious work, he soon tired of his business, neglected it, and after continuing it for 15 months, it was sold for the benefit of his creditors. He then went to London with his wife and child named Herbert, and was employed and did pretty well at a sail-cloth works. Then he became a commission agent, took a house in Milk-street, Cheapside, and got a good agency from Mr. Jeffray. For a little less than five years his wife lived in comfort with him in London, but the health of the boy Herbert failing, he sent her and his child to live at Ramsgate, and it was his practice to come down to her frequently but always on the anniversary of his wedding, which took place on a Christmas Day. Seven years ago last Christmas he was expected as usual, but he wrote to his wife, and said that he had fallen into difficulties and could not come; and here was the break from which may be traced the root of all the sad tragedy which is here recorded, and it is probable that about this time he took to betting and billiards, and of late he was a billiard-marker and betting man.

From the Christmas Day seven years ago he deserted his wife. Whether he then took up with the woman whose children’s blood is on his hands is not known, but for that long and weary seven years Mrs. Forward, by honest industry, earned for herself not only a living, but, as we have said, confidence and esteem. A mutual friend of the murderer and his wife, Mr. Ellis, a dyer, in King-street, showed the deserted woman much kindness, and through him her fiendish husband could always have heard of her. He made no such effort, but during the seven years’ separation anonymous letters have reached her, unquestionably from her husband, with a view to ascertaining if she was married again or dead. Herbert died, or he, too, would probably have added one more to the victims.

His doings in Holborn — his heartless murder of the three little boys on Tuesday night — are reported above. On Wednesday morning he disguised himself by putting on a large pair of false black whiskers, a moustache, and green spectacles, and came by the train to Broadstairs. He feared probably to come to Ramsgate platform, so he walked from Broadstairs to his native town. He lost no time on arriving in seeking his victims, and in the eighth year of their separation, the man who had, it would have been thought, wrought his wife enough misery, returned to consummate his wickedness.

THE INQUEST.

On Friday morning the inquest was opened at the Town Hall, at half-past ten, before Mr. Joseph N. Mourilyan, coroner of Sandwich, of which Ramsgate is one of the liberties.

A highly-respectable jury of 15 in number was sworn in, and at once proceeded to view the bodies of the unfortunate deceased, Mary Anne Jemima Forward and Emily Frances Forward, which lay in a room appropriated to the reception of the dead at the Seamen’s Infirmary, Ramsgate.

The sight which presented itself when the coroner, jury, witnesses, and others went to the dead house, at the infirmary, was one of the most melancholy description. On the left hand, on the ground, covered by a rough sacking, lay the remains of the little girl of eight years old, disfigured, the face destroyed, the shot having apparently passed entirely through the head, which, bruised and broken, had now lost its natural shape, and presented not a revolting, but a sad spectacle. On a stretcher raised from the ground was the wife of the murderer, with two shot wounds, one before and one behind the ear; surely one might have satisfied the villain, whose object was to murder, but prompted by the evil spirit, his love of blood seemed to grow by what it fed on. Naturally the poor young woman’s face — and at thirty-five she could not be called other than young — was bruised, swollen, blood besmeared, and sad to look at. It was no unmanly feeling that induced more than one who were present, gazing from the murdered woman to the murdered child, to draw his handkerchief across his eyes and go precipitately from the dead house to the yard, and almost sobbingly exclaim, "This is sad, indeed."

The painful duty over, the jury and others returned to the Town Hall, where the inquest was held.

William George Tappenden, the first witness, said:- I am potman at the "Camden Arms." I am 16 years of age. Two minutes before eight o’clock on Wednesday a man came, an old man, and asked me if I would go an errand to the dyers, 61, King-street, Mr. Ellis’s. I asked if the dressmaker lived there. Ellis’s was not 61. He said when I returned that was not the message he told me to ask; he told me to ask for Mrs. Forward, at 61. I asked her for her direction for a gentleman at the "Camden Arms," and she put it on paper, and I gave it to the gentleman. The Mrs. Forward is the woman who now lies dead. I should know the man if I saw him again.

By a Juror:- He had a beard. I did not notice whether he had glasses on.

Adelaide Ellis, the next witness, deposed:- I live at 38, King-street. I knew Mrs. Forward and her daughter Frances. Had known Mrs. Forward 18 years, and the daughter eight, all her lifetime. On Wednesday evening Mrs. Forward came a little after eight to my father’s house, and asked what the boy wanted who came for the address. The child was there. I told her what the boy said, and that I told him where she lived. She came in again and said a gentleman wanted to see her at the "Camden Arms." She said she made dresses for ladies and not for gentlemen. She lived opposite me. Having a suspicion that it was her husband my father went over and advised her to sec if it was him before having an interview with him, and I was to go with her. I had my things on to go, and while I was waiting to go with Mrs. Forward she came into my father’s house with her husband. She said "I have accidentally met Stephen in the street. Let us come in here" (meaning my father’s house). She said he wished her to go with him up Belmont-place as he wished to speak with her. He refused at first to come into our house, and she refused to go up Belmont-place. My father was standing at the door, and Forward and his wife then came into our house. They came into the parlour, and she said, "Whatever you have to say you can say before Mr. Ellis and his daughter." Forward assented. I then asked him where he had been for the last seven years and a half. He made no reply. She told him what she had suffered during his cruel desertion. He said she had not suffered more than he had done. He said, "I wish to say to you what I cannot say in the presence of your friends." She said, "You can say anything you wish before them; had it not been for Mr. Ellis I must have perished." He said but very little, but how cruelly he had been used some years ago. I replied that had nothing to do with the question. I begged of him that his conduct for the future would in some way atone for the past to her. We then left them together in the shop. They remained a quarter of an hour. We returned, and Mrs. Forward said Stephen had promised to come again at eight o’clock in the morning. I said, "Will you be sure to come?" He said, "Yes; I have said so, and I shall keep my word." Mrs. Forward then left. I watched her home, and saw her into the house. We then let him out; he parted with her on friendly terms. He shook hands with me twice. I did not see him do so with her. He went up Bellevue-hill. I saw no more of him that night. On Thursday morning Mrs. Forward came over to my house at a quarter to eight, her daughter came a few minutes afterwards, and Forward at twenty minutes past eight. He walked into the shop.

(Here witness, to whom deceased had been like a sister nearly fainted, and was accommodated with a seat.)

Witness continued:- He seemed calm and collected. I asked him if he would take some breakfast with deceased. They then went upstairs to the sitting room. Forward particularly requested the child should go with them. Mrs. Forward sent for the child, and it came over. I saw it at the bottom of the stairs. I sent her up, saying, "Go up stairs, they want you." She did go up, I went into the shop to do my work. The child had not been in the room five minutes before I heard the discharge of fire-arms. I then heard a heavy fall, and a rush made to the door. I ran up stairs to see what was the matter. I saw the child rolling down four stairs from the landing. She was bleeding from the head. She appeared to have been running from the man as the shot was fired. I was then going to take hold of the child, and Forward again placed the pistol to her mouth. I said "Forward, what are you doing?" He replied "Nothing." I ran and called to my father. I cannot say if he fired the pistol when he put it to the child’s mouth, but I heard the report of a pistol a second time. My father was at the dye-house, and as I went to call him across the yard I heard the report of a pistol. My father at once came. I went and picked the child up, it had rolled down on the landing at the foot of the four stairs. She was bleeding profusely from the head. She was lying in a pool of blood, and was quite dead. I then laid her down in the parlour, and sent for Mr. Curling, the surgeon. I did not go up stairs for a few minutes, my father having told me Mrs. Forward was dead. This was a quarter of an hour after. When I got to the sitting-room I saw Mrs. Forward lying quite dead. She was wounded in the head in two places. Forward had been removed. I did not see him leave, as I had to be taken away.

By a Juror:- Did Mrs. Forward make any particular remark in reference to the intended interview on Thursday?

Witness:- No further than that she felt very ill.

By the Coroner:- The quarrel took place in my presence between Mr. and Mrs. Forward. The prisoner had a moustache and beard when I saw him in the morning, he had it on when I saw him on the stairs.

By a Juror:- I heard two shots before I left the shop and one subsequently.

William Ellis, the father of the last witness, said:- I am a dyer. I knew Mrs. Forward and her little daughter, the former about twelve years, the daughter from her birth She was eight years old last July. Forward had deserted Mrs. Forward about eight years. After he sent her down with her sick child, since dead, he never came to see her although he promised to do so at Christmas, seven years and a half ago. He came to my house on Wednesday evening with her a little after nine. He had on a short black coat and had a moustache and beard. He kept his hat on in my room. Mrs. Forward began to reprove him for his past conduct. He sat still a long time, and then began to talk of his own troubles. He said to his wife, "There is one thing I wish to say to you, but I cannot say it in the presence of your friends." He repeated that, and my daughter said, "If you have anything to say to each other to make things comfortable, father and I will retire." We did so; we went into the shop, and remained there a quarter of an hour. His wife came, and said, "We cannot settle; but he has promised to come again at eight o’clock to-morrow." I told him not to confine himself to eight o’clock, I should be up at six and he could come and have breakfast with us; he thanked me, and went up Bellevue-hill, and his wife went across the street home. I think he shook hands with his wife; he did not kiss her. On Thursday morning Mrs. Forward came in alone at a quarter to eight. He came at twenty minutes past eight; he opened the door and came right in, as I had told him to do. I offered him breakfast; he said he had had it. The child came in before him, and was playing about in the yard, as she often used to do. She was called in. Her mother said, "Come, Emily," he said, "Is this ours?" He took the child by the hand, put the other arm round her I waist and kissed her affectionately.

(Here witness fairly broke down, overcome by his feelings.)

Witness continued:- When he came in he said to his wife "Last night you gave me nothing but reproof, to-day I want none of it." My daughter then offered them the use of the sitting-room up stairs. He had no firearms in his hands when he came. I went to the finishing-room, about twenty yards from the house. The child was sent home to be washed to go to school. A few minutes elapsed then. My daughter went up to do the bed-rooms; and Mrs. Forward said her husband wished to see the child. My daughter said she had gone to school, and she was sent, for and called up into the sitting-room. I never saw her alive again. Whilst I was in my finishing room I heard pop, pop — two reports of firearms. I was rising from the chair I occupied when I heard another. The interval between the first two and third was nearly a minute. My daughter called me most excitedly. I rushed upstairs, and jumped over the child, who was lying on the landing-having rolled down three stairs - into the sitting-room. The door was about four inches open. I shoved the door open. I saw Forward with a pistol in his left hand. I grasped his right shoulder, and said, "What have you been doing?" I said, "You have got a pistol there, give it me directly." He did. It was quite hot. It was a revolver. The pistol produced is the one. I took it from him, and casting my eyes over the table, saw the legs of his poor wife. I sat him down on the sofa, leaned over the table, and saw she was lifeless. I turned back to him, and for the moment did not know if the same man was in the room, for he had taken off his beard and moustaches. I asked him, "Where are your disfigurements, your moustaches and beard?" He said, "There they are," pointing to the grate. I looked to the grate, and found they were not there. I insisted on knowing where they were. He took them out of his pocket, and attempted to destroy them. I said, "You shan’t twist them, give them to me." He did so, without a word. I asked him, "What caused you to do anything like this?" He then got up and stood, and said, "Ellis, Ellis, Ellis, she is better off now than ever she was; she has suffered a great deal in her mind, had a deal of trial and trouble; now it is all over, for if she had lived she would have had more trouble, now she is out of it; for it I had returned to London I should have been under sentence of death." The last sentence he said vehemently clenching his hands. "For what," I said, "are you worse than a double murderer; your poor wife and child there?" He said, "Say no more." I had sent for the doctor and the police, and they came. I gave him in charge for murdering his wife and child. Before the police arrived I told Forward, "You will have been the ruin of my house." He then said, "Ellis, you will not lose a farthing. I have £l200 in the hands of a party, or company." I do not know which.

By a Juror:- Forward did not make the slightest effort to resist or escape, nor did he say why he expected trouble in London.

A Juror:- What answer did Mrs. Forward make when he said he had been upbraided enough the night before, and did not, want any more of it then?

Witness:- She said, "What could you expect, seeing the destitute state in which you have left me for all these years."

Mr. Hicks said:- I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and Apothecaries’ Hall. I was called in to Mr. Ellis’s on Thursday, at about twenty-five minutes past nine, in going up to the front sitting-room I saw the body of a female, quite dead, lying on the left side. She had two wounds on the right side of the neck, one a small circular wound, a quarter of an inch in diameter, two inches behind the ear, and almost in a line with the opening of the ear From that wound a small portion of brain was protruding. Another wound existed an inch in front of the ear, towards the face in the same line, and there was an opening in the right eyelid which was much bruised and swollen. There was no exit from the wound that I could find. The first and second wounds were about the same size. They were apparently pistol-shot wounds. The hair and skin behind the ear, around the wound, were very much singed, Those wounds were the cause of her death. I then examined the child. The mother must have dropped as she was shot. Her attitude was quite easy. The child having been moved I can say nothing of the position. I found the child in the lower room. The child was fully dressed, having a hat on. Blood had issued in large quantities from the mouth and nose, and on removing the hat I found a large wound on each side of the skull, caused by a gun-shot, the brain protruding in large quantities. These wounds were the cause of death. I found a small pistol bullet which had been conical, but was compressed, lying by the side of the child. I took off her hat. I did not see it fall. I did not find any bullet with reference to the mother. I have not made a post-mortem examination of the bodies. They were represented to me to be Mrs. Forward and her daughter. I have nothing to add.

By a Juror:- The two wounds in the mother must have been the result of two distinct shots. I cannot say whether those in the child were caused by one or more shots, her head was so much knocked about.

Police-constable W. Drayson:- I was called to Mr. Ellis’s house at a quarter to nine yesterday. I saw a child eight years old lying a corpse in the back room with a wound in the head all covered with blood. Miss Ellis was in the room. She sent me up-stairs; there I found a very large pool of blood on the landing. In the sitting-room I found a woman quite dead, covered with blood, lying on her left side. Mr. Forward and Ellis were there, and the latter said, "Take charge of these arms." He handed me a revolver, false whiskers, moustaches, and some green spectacles. I was then sent by Sergeant Perkins to fetch the doctor and my superintendent. Forward said nothing, and was perfectly quiet. The pistol was quite warm when handed to me, and there was blood on the barrel.

Mr. Superintendent Livick said:- I was fetched between half-past nine and a quarter to ten to Mr. Ellis’s, in King-street. I saw a female child, eight years old, dead and smothered in blood in the back-room. The body we have viewed to-day is that of the same child. I went upstairs and saw on the landing a pool of blood, and in the sitting-room a female also dead and in a pool of blood on the floor. The body of a woman we viewed to-day is the woman I found dead in the sitting-room at Mr. Ellis’s. I asked Forward his name. He said, "My name is Stephen Forward." I recognised him then, as I knew him some years ago. He said, "I have lately gone by the name of Walter Southey." I asked his age. He said, "Thirty-five." I pointed to the body on the floor, and said, "Who is this?" He replied, "My lawful married wife." I asked her name. He said, "Mary Anne Jemima Forward." I made a note of it at the time. I asked whose child it was that lay above stairs. He said it was his child, and its name was Emily Sarah Frances Forward, and she was eight years old. He said his wife was 35. I then told him, "I am about to charge you with the wilful murder of your wife and child, now lying here." He said, "I am not prepared to make any answer." He said, "Mr. Livick if you knew all you would not think so bad of me as it appears." I asked if he had been searched, and he took a razor from his pocket and handed it to me, saying, "That is a razor." On the table opposite him I saw six pistol ball cartridge, which I produce, two pocket-books, half a sovereign, 5s. 3d., and 3d. in coppers. He appeared to have taken them from his pocket. He wished some of the papers to he taken great care of. There was a dozen caps. No further observations were made, and I sent him to the police station. He was examined before the magistrates yesterday, and remanded till to-morrow morning. I have examined the contents of the pockets, and found nothing material to this inquest in them.

This closed the case.

The Coroner was about to sum up, when Mr. Inspector Tanner, of the metropolitan detective police force, applied to the coroner to adjourn the case till to-morrow, in order thereby to facilitate the removal of the prisoner to Middlesex to be taken before the magistrates and examined on the charge of murdering the three boys in Holborn. He explained that the result of closing this inquest, now and the coroner issuing a warrant of committal would be that the governor of Landridge Gaol would not be able to part with him on taking him out of the county, and there would be an injustice to the prisoner, who would have to wait certainly till December and probably till March next, to be tried at the Maidstone Assizes, whereas, if committed in London on the charge of murder he would be tried almost immediately. Moreover, the presence of the prisoner was necessary to the investigation in London; and the only inconvenience that could result from an adjournment till to-morrow would be that the jury would have to attend for a quarter of an hour, and he thought they would not object to do this to further the ends of public justice.

The Coroner:- The prisoner can be removed by habeas, I think.

Mr. Tanner:- The coroner’s warrant is very strong, and I doubt if we can remove him by habeas.

The coroner and jury consulted, and came to the conclusion that they would make a legal difficulty rather, than by adjourning and re-assembling to-morrow, avoid one, and declined to adjourn accordingly, and in three minutes they returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder" against Stephen Forward for the murder of his wife and child.

The prisoner, since his examination, is altering his tactics. He now assumes a gentlemanly demeanour, writes an immense quantity of rubbish, asks the Crown to provide a solicitor and shorthand writer for him, &c. He says his nerves are shaken, and expressed a wish to see the doctor on Thursday night. A doctor was sent to him, and after examining him, said that he saw nothing the matter with the prisoner. He now confesses that he used nicotine for the boys, and says he had bought the poison long ago for himself, and Mrs. White, they having agreed to commit suicide.

ADJOURNED EXAMINATION OF THE PRISONER.

On Saturday morning, at 11 o’clock, Stephen Forward, who stood charged with the wilful murder of Mary his wife, and Emily his daughter, a child eight years old, and who is also suspected, partly on statements of his own, to have been concerned in the murder of the three children in Holborn, was brought up on remand before the magistrates sitting at the Town-hall, Ramsgate. The magistrates present were A. Crofton, Esq., (chairman), General Sir William Coghlan, K.C.B., the Rev. G. W. Sicklemore T. Whitehead, Esq., E. C. H. Wilkie, Esq., & G. E. Hannam, Esq. The prisoner had been brought earlier in the morning from Sandwich Gaol, about seven miles distant, in the custody of Mr. Hill, the governor or the prison, in a close fly. Long before the hour appointed for the examination a crowd had assembled outside the Court-house, and on its being opened the people rushed tumultuously in. When the prisoner appeared in the dock he was wonderfully calm and collected. He is a tall, muscular man, about 40 years of age, and he had much improved in appearance since his first examination on Thursday. He has a pompous manner of speaking. He held in his hand a statement in writing covering several sheets of foolscap paper, and which he occupied himself in reading and amending in the short interval before the exanimation was resumed. For a moment he winced and blushed as the crowd rushed into the hall, but he never looked round, and, recovering his composure, he resumed writing.

On the magistrates taking their seats, the prisoner, addressing the Bench, said he had a request to make before the examination was re-opened—namely, for legal assistance, and he had to utter a protest against his having been deprived of such assistance, by which, he said, his power of proving his innocence had been greatly reduced.

The Chairman told him that was his own fault, and that on the first examination he had strongly urged him to obtain such assistance.

The prisoner:- I ask that a gentleman who is now present may be allowed to act as my legal adviser. He has been sent here by a poor publican, who is now the only friend I have in the world, and who has done for me what Zaccheus, that sublime man, did on a memorable occasion.

A clerk from the office of Messrs. Gold and Son was then admitted to act for the prisoner at his request; and the Chairman told the prisoner that if he followed the recommendation of his legal adviser he would hold his tongue. This was said in reference to a written statement the prisoner was about to read.

Mr. Robert Hicks was called and examined. He said:- I am a surgeon practising in Ramsgate. I was called to 38, King-street, on Thursday last, at 25 minutes past 9 in the morning. I went. I first saw the child lying in a back room, but as it had been moved, I went up stairs and there found the body of a woman in the front sitting-room lying on the floor on her left side. There were several people in the room. The left arm was slightly bent under her; the legs were also a little bent, the right arm lay on the body, the head was bent, and the face lay in a pool of blood. There was a wound two inches behind the right ear, circular, and about a quarter of an inch in diameter; another about an inch in front of the same ear; a third, irregular, under the right lower eyelid, the eyelid itself being very much swollen. The prisoner was in the room. Some one asked in my hearing and in that, of the prisoner who had done it. The prisoner made no reply. He mentioned the name of the child. I asked generally what the pistol was loaded with, and the prisoner, getting up from sofa, handed me a ball cartridge, but said nothing. The cause of death was gunshot wound. I have since examined the head of the woman more carefully.

The Chairman:- Have you altered your opinion as to the cause of death?

Witness:- No.

The Chairman:- Then we don’t want that.

Witness (resuming):- I afterwards saw the body of the child. Blood was issuing from the nose and mouth. On removing the child’s hat I saw a gunshot wound, which had completely traversed the head, and I found a ball, which had been used, close to the child.

William George Tappenden, a porter at the "Camden Arms Tavern," Ramsgate, repeated the evidence he gave at the inquest on Friday as to a man, whom he now identified as the prisoner, having asked him to take a message to the deceased woman on Wednesday evening, about 8 o’clock I that he wanted to see her; as to having written her address on a piece of paper, and as to his having taken the address to the prisoner, whom he found walking backward and forward before the "Camden Arms," and who then went away.

At this stage the prisoner, pointing to a photographer’s camera which had been put up in the court and directed towards him, said with great solemnity of manner, addressing the Bench,— "I have to protest against my photograph being taken in this court. I am an innocent man."

Mr. Crofton, the chairman, said his photograph should not be taken if he objected to it, and ordered the apparatus to be removed.

Mr. Livick, head-constable of Ramsgate, was the next witness. He said:- On Thursday morning, about half-past 9, I received information that a murder had been committed at Mr. Ellis’s house in King-street, and I went there immediately. I saw a female child lying dead in a back room. I then went upstairs to the front sitting-room. On the landing I saw a pool of blood, and on entering the room I saw the prisoner sitting on a sofa, and a woman lying dead on the floor. The prisoner was pointed out to me, and I asked him his name. When he spoke I recognised him by his voice. He replied, Stephen Forward, and that he had of late gone by the name of Walter Southey. I asked who the woman was lying dead, pointing to her. He said it was his own lawful married wife. I inquired her name. He said Mary Anne Jemima Forward. On my asking the name of the child he replied Emily Sara Frances Forward, and that the child was eight years old and the mother 35. I told him I was going to charge him with the wilful murder of them, and that he need not say anything unless he pleased. Addressing me by name, he said if I knew all I should not think him so bad as he appeared to be. I asked if had beer searched. He then produced a razor from his pocket, and before him on the table were lying six pistol ball cartridges, and two pocket-books. He also produced some papers and keys, half a sovereign, 5s. 3d. in silver, and 3d. in copper. I directed the constable to take him to the police-station, and while there he asked if I had received any communication from Sir Richard Mayne respecting the death of three children. I said I had not, but I might. He then said he would make a statement, but was not then sufficiently collected to do so. I left him and returned in about an hour afterwards. On my return, he asked for pen, ink, and paper. I gave them to him, and he wrote the statement produced, which he wished to be sent to Sir Richard Mayne, and which he gave to me in his cell. (The document appears above.) I told him he was also charged with the wilful murder of three children at the "Star Coffee house" in Holborn, upon which he asked which charge he would be tried upon, and whether he could make his election. That was all that passed.

Police-constable Drayson, who on Thursday morning was also called to the house of Mr. Ellis, gave corroborative evidence as to the state in which the bodies were found. He was asked by Mr. Ellis, he said, to take charge of the five-chambered revolver produced, the pair of false whiskers and moustache, a pair of green spectacles with sides, and some pieces of paper with blood on them. The pistol was then quite warm, and there was blood on the barrel.

Adelaide Ellis was called:- I am a daughter of William Ellis, dyer at Ramsgate. On the evening before the murder the prisoner and his wife called at our house. They came together, and they had some conversation, and he made an appointment to come next morning. He then went away. About 20 minutes past eight; next morning he called. His wife was then taking breakfast with us. The wife and he sat a few minutes in the parlour. The child was there, and I told her to ask the gentleman if he knew who she was. He did not know her. I then said they might go upstairs, and they went. The child, who had left, was sent for, and it went upstairs also. In a few minutes I heard two reports, and after the second I heard a heavy fall. I ran upstairs to see what was the matter. I saw the child rolling down the stairs, and the prisoner following her with a pistol in his hand. I said, "Forward, what are you doing?" and rushed downstairs and called my father. The prisoner made no reply. My father came and ran upstairs. I went after him and brought the child down. It was quite dead. I ran upstairs again, after sending for Mr. Curling, a surgeon. On entering the sitting-room I saw Mrs. Forward lying dead.

Cross-examined:- When I saw the prisoner following the child he did not ask her to send for a policeman.

This being the evidence for the prosecution, Mr. Snowden, the magistrates’ clerk, addressing the prisoner, gave him the usual formal caution as to anything he might say, reminding him that he was not obliged to say anything, but that whatever he said would be taken down in writing, and might be used against him on his trial.

The prisoner, through his adviser, said he wished to ask for a remand.

The Chairman said the prisoner must assign some reason to justify a remand. The prosecution had no further evidence.

The adviser explained the reason to be that the prisoner might be allowed on a future day to produce certain documents and evidence.

The Chairman refused, telling the prisoner that on the first examination he had warned him against leading a statement he had then prepared, thinking it was very injudicious for him to do so. As to documents, every document that could hear on the inquiry had been seized by the police when the prisoner was apprehended. Any other document would be quite unavailing there.

The Prisoner:- The documents are not understood by you, nor their character, nor the ground of my asking for a remand. The ground is this, that I charge the guilt of the crime charged upon me against others, and that a person brought to justice is entitled to show the truths which conscientiously convince him that the guilt with which he is charged develops upon others, before being committed for trial.

The Chairman:- You are now alluding to the London charge, with which we as magistrates have nothing to do. Prisoner:- No.

Chairman:- This Bench is going to send you to be tried by a judge of a superior court and a jury of your country. We peremptorily refuse to remand you. You stand committed to Sandwich Gaol, to be tried at the next Maidstone Assizes for the murder of your wife and your daughter. (Addressing the prisoner’s legal adviser.) The Prisoner applied to me the other day to know whether he should be tried in London, alluding to the offence committed there, or at Maidstone. He had no option in the matter. The option lies entirely with the Government, and if they wish to try him in London for the crime he is alleged to have committed there, the mode in which they would have to proceed would be under the Habeas Corpus Act.

The prisoner’s adviser remarked that he could be tried under Palmer’s Act in London, even on the Ramsgate charge.

The Chairman said he could, adding that the Bench had communicated with Sir George Grey on the matter, and that was the answer they had received.

The Prisoner:- I should be glad to address the Bench again. I must act upon my own judgment.

The Chairman:- You have had the benefit of a legal adviser.

The Prisoner:- Thank you. My conscience is my own guide. I wish to address the Bench.

Mr. Snowdon, the magistrates’ clerk, ordered the prisoner to be removed, and he was removed accordingly. As he was leaving the dock he said he should not be doing his duty to himself or to the cause of justice if he did not protest against the committal.

From the Kentish Gazette, 26 December 1865.

Wednesday. (Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)

THE TRIAL OF THE PRISONER SOUTHEY.

The trial of the prisoner Southey for the murder of his wife and child at Ramsgate was specially fixed to take place this morning at half-past nine o’clock, and the greatest interest appeared to be created to hear the proceedings.

The prisoner (who was described in the calendar as Stephen Forward, aged 35, alias Ernest Walter Southey, Baker,) was placed at the bar immediately the learned judge Mr. Justice Mellor took his seat on the bench, and when his name was called by Mr. Reed, the clerk of arraigns, he stepped forward to the front of the dock, and made a most respectful bow to the Court and jury. The prisoner was dressed very genteelly in a suit of dark clothes, and his appearance altogether was very gentlemanly, he wore a large beard and moustache.

Mr. Poland and Mr. Philbrick appeared as the counsel for the Crown, instructed by Mr. Pollard, the assistant solicitor to the Treasuary; Mr. E. T. Smith attended as counsel for the prisoner, instructed by Mr. Gold, of Serjeants’-inn.

Mr. E. T. Smith addressed his lordship, and said that he was instructed to make an application to his lordship that the trial of the prisoner Forward should stand over until one o'clock. The ground on which he made the application was that at the last moment it had been considered advisable to call certain witnesses on behalf of the prisoner, and although every effort had been made it was found impossible to procure their attendance before the hour he had mentioned. In all human probability, however, they would then be in attendance, and he, therefore, had to apply that the trial should he postponed until one o’clock.

Mr. Justice Mellor said he did not think he could resist such an application as that which was made by the learned counsel for the prisoner, and the case would, therefore, stand over until the hour mentioned.

The prisoner then said he should like to address a few observations to the Court.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- What is the nature of the observations you wish to make? If they have anything to do with your care I will hear you, but if it is merely extraneous matter that has nothing to do with the question before us I cannot permit you to address the Court.

Prisoner:- My lord, I wish to say something with reference to the name under which I am indicted.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- Oh, that is perfectly immaterial. If it should he necessary the name in the indictment can be altered at any time.

The prisoner:- My lord, I consider it of vital importance. There is a vital principal involved in it. I wish to say—

Mr. Justice Mellor:- I cannot allow you to go on addressing the Court. You have counsel to defend you, and you must either allow him to do so or else conduct your defence yourself.

Prisoner: Then my lord, I think it right to say that I cannot allow any one to defend me.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- I would advise you to consider that well before you decide upon it, because I think it right to give you notice that if you do decide upon conducting your own defence I cannot afterwards allow counsel to interfere in any way in the matter. I therefore again say that you had better consider the matter carefully before you decide.

The prisoner was then removed, and the Court disposed of some other business.

At one o'clock the prisoner was placed at the bar and called up to plead.

He said that his name was not Forward. His name was Southey.

Mr. Justice Mellor told him it was immaterial, but if he wished to have his name altered it should be done.

The prisoner said he should like to have his right name in the indictment.

Mt. Justice Mellow:- What name do you wish to have inserted in the indictment and to plead to?

Prisoner: Ernest Walter Southy, which is the name I have been known by for either years.

The name was then altered, and the prisoner was called upon to plead to the charge of wilful murder committed upon Emily Sarah Francis Forward.

The prisoner then said:- Before I plead I wish to inform the Court of some circumstances that it is absolutely necessary they should be acquainted with in reference to my case.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- I cannot at present allow you to do anything but plead guilty or not guilty to the indictment.

Prisoner:- I wish to show that Mrs.Forward did not die from the cause stated.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- You cannot do it. You must say whether you are guilty or not guilty. You will have an abundant opportunity of proving the fact you mention when the trial is going on.

The prisoner then said that he considered it was impossible for him to have a fair trial at these assizes, and he wished the trial to be postponed.

Mr. Justice Mellor again said that all that could be done at present was that he should plead.

The Prisoner said he objected to the whole proceeding. He considered he ought to be tried by a special jury.

Mr. Justice Mellor told him that he could not be tried by a special jury.

Mr. Smith then said that he should ask his lordship to exercise his power of directing a plea of not guilty to be entered; and this was dene.

The prisoner was then given in charge for the murder of his wife.

The prisoner asked to be accommodated with a chair; and this was done.

Mr. Poland then proceeded to open the case for the prosecution. He said that the jury were assembled to discharge a most important duty to the Crown and the country, and it appeared to him that he should best discharge the task that devolved upon him by at once giving a calm and dispassionate statement of the facts upon which the charge was preferred against the prisoner. He believed that the real name of the prisoner was Stephen Forwood, and that he had formerly carried on the business of baker at Ramsgate, and he had a wife and child whose deaths were the subject of the indictment that had just been read to them. He was not prosperous in his business, and it appeared that in 1857 he left Ramsgate, the child having been born during that year; and from that period down to the time when these acts were committed they had not met. The transaction took place on the 9th of August, and it appeared that on that day the prisoner went down to Ramsgate and made some inquiries after his wife, and he eventually met her, and they went to the house of person named Ellis, where they had some conversation, and when the prisoner left he said he would call and see her on the following morning. He had engaged a lodging at Ramsgate for a night or two, and on the morning of the 10th the prisoner again went to see his wife. The learned counsel then proceeded to state that very shortly after the prisoner was in the company of his wife the report of a pistol was heard, and afterwards three or four other reports, and when Mr. Ellis went into the room he discovered the wife and child both dead, the former having the marks of two pistol shots in the head. The prisoner was disguised, and when Mr. Ellis expressed his horror at what had happened the prisoner replied, "It is better that she is dead, for if she had not been she would have heard of my being sentenced to death in London." Upon a search being made a false beard was found, and a pair of green spectacles in the fireplace, where the prisoner had thrown them, and a revolver and some pistol balls were found in his possession. The prisoner was taken before the magistrate, and he handed a written statement to Mr. Livick, the superintendent of police, and that statement he should lay before them, and the jury would form their own opinion whether it was a statement likely to be made by a man who was not responsible for his actions. (The learned serjeant then read the statement referred to.) He went on to say that the prisoner read this statement to the magistrates, and he then expressed a wish that a telegraphic message should be sent to some person in London to assist him. It was in these terms:— "In prison, my life is over. I shall have to justify myself from most terrible-charges." The jury would see that there was no vagueness in this statements but that it was the exact truth and stated what had really occurred. It contained none of the jargon that was in the other statement, and it appeared that the prisoner afterwards wrote a letter complaining that an attempt had been made to take his photograph while he was under examination, and this also was entirely free from similar jargon, and was exactly such a document as would be written by a man who was in the full possession of all his faculties. The learned counsel then read another letter from the prisoner to the superintendent of police requesting that his clothes, which he had left at his lodging at Ramsgate, might be restored to him, in confirmation of his argument that their was nothing to show that at the time the offence was committed the prisoner was not in full possession of his reason. With regard to what was stated by the prisoner as to his being charged with the murder of three children in London, he would inform the jury of some circumstances that had taken place prior to the acts that were committed at Ramsgate.

Mr. Justice Mellor expressed his opinion that the learned counsel ought to exercise some discretion with reference to the statement he was about to make as to the circumstances of this alleged crime. He had no desire to shut out the statement, and he had the greatest confidence that the learned counsel would not go farther into the matter than was actually necessary.

Mr. Poland said that with reference to the defence of insanity which was to be set up, it appeared to him that it was most important that the jury should know what had taken place in London with reference to these three children. He then proceeded to make a short statement to the effect that the prisoner had taken the three children of Mr. White, the husband of a woman with whom he had been connected, on a particular night, and that on the following night they were found dead, and that the prisoner almost immediately afterwards seemed to have disguised himself and gone down to Ramsgate, where he committed the acts that were now imputed to him. Mr. Poland next proceeded to state the law upon the question of insanity, and said that the question was whether the prisoner at the time the act was committed was capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or whether he knew that he was acting contrary to the laws of God and man. With regard to the absurd and ridiculous statements that had been made by the prisoner, it appeared to him that they were of not the slightest importance, as it was clear that no man could be permitted to write a certificate of his own insanity; and that he should show that, since he had been in custody, he had not exhibited the slightest indication of insanity.

The following evidence was then adduced:—

William George Tappenden said:— In August last I was porter at the "Camden Arms," Ramsgate, and on the evening of the 9th of August I saw the prisoner at that house. He wished me to go and inquire, as I understood him, for a Mrs. -----, dressmaker, and I inquired who he meant, and he explained to me that I was to ask for a Mrs. Forward. I found her address, and I took it back to the prisoner on a piece of paper.

I think the prisoner wore a beard and a moustache on that night; but I cannot say whether he wore green spectacles. After I had given him the address he went away.

Mr. W. Ellis said:- I am a dyer, and live at No. 38, King-street, Ramsgate. My daughter, Adelaide, lives with me. I know the prisoner. I have known him 15 years, before he was married. I never exactly knew his name till he was married, and then I understood his name was Stephen Forward. He carried on business as a master baker at Ramsgate until he went away, which was about the year 1852. He lodged with me for a short time after he gave up business, and he then went to London to look for a situation, and his wife followed him. I did not see the deceased woman again for seven or eight years, when she returned to Ramsgate with the child that is since dead, and for the last seven years the wife lived at Ramsgate by herself, and the prisoner used to come and visit her occasionally and stop a short time, not longer than two months; but he never came after the last child was born, which was eight years ago. From that time till Wednesday night, the 9th of August, I never saw the prisoner.

The deceased woman lived opposite to me in King-street, and got her living by dressmaking. Her mother and child lived with her. The prisoner came to my house on the night of the 9th of August, but I did not see him. I afterwards saw deceased, and a man was following her, and the deceased said "It is Stephen." They came into my house and I shook hands with him. The deceased sat on the sofa, and the prisoner took a seat opposite her, leaning his head on his arm. His wife began to upbraid him for leaving her, and related her troubles and trials, and inquired what he left her for, and said if it had not been for these friends (Mr. and Miss Ellis) she must have perished for want. The prisoner said, "I appreciate the kindness your friends have shown you," and he then said that he had saved up £1172, but he had been done out of it all. The deceased then said she could do nothing for him as she was under parochial relief, and had been for some years. The prisoner then began to narrate the troubles and privations he had undergone, and the deceased wished to know what had induced him to come back to her, and said that he must have some motive. The prisoner replied "What I have to say I cannot say in the presence of your friends." My daughter said that if he had anything to say she and I would retire to the shop, and we did so, and remained in the shop about a quarter of an hour. The deceased then tapped at the door and said that the prisoner had promised to come in the morning at eight o’clock, and my daughter said to the prisoner "Mind you are sure to come," and the prisoner replied "Yes, what I say I will do;" and we both pressed him to come to breakfast at eight o'clock. The prisoner and his wife then left, the latter walking first and the prisoner following her, and I saw her go into her own house. At that time the prisoner had what appeared to be a black beard and moustache. On the following morning the deceased came to my house a little before eight, and we sat down, and the little girl Emily came in, and we all began to breakfast, and about twenty minutes past eight the prisoner came in, and he sat down, and when I asked him to take breakfast he said he had had his breakfast. He then said to his wife, "Mind, last night I had nothing but reproofs; I don’t want any more of it." My wife then said to the deceased child, "Do you know that gentleman?" pointing to the prisoner. She, of course, said she did not, and my wife told her to go and ask him how he was. She did so, and the prisoner looked at her and said, "Is this ours." The wife said it was. The prisoner then put his arm round her neck, and, apparently, kissed the child with great affection. His wife then asked him if he knew the boy was dead, and he said he did not. My wife then said that if they had anything to say to each other, they might go into the sitting-room. The prisoner and his wife did so. It was now near nine o’clock, and I went to my work at the back of the premises, and I saw no more until my daughter came to me. Before she came I had heard he report of fire-arms twice, both reports nearly together. I went towards the house, and my daughter came shrieking to me, and at the same instant I heard another report. I then rushed up stairs, and the first thing I saw was the body of the child lying on the landing. I stepped over her, and went into the room, and saw the prisoner and seized him by the left shoulder, and said, "Forward, what have you been doing; what have you been doing?" He made me no answer. I saw a pistol in his left hand, and I told him to give it to me directly, and he did so. It was so hot I could not hold it. It was a revolver, one barrel and several chambers. There was a great deal of smoke in the room, and it smelt strongly of gunpowder. I next observed the body of the prisoner's wife, and I again asked him what he had done that for and said it would be the ruin of me, as I had left my place for six weeks, and the letting was all over. The prisoner replied, "Ellis, Ellis, Ellis, I have £1200 of my own in a party’s hands, who will compensate you for all the loss you may sustain." Before this took place I had sent for the police and a doctor, and the prisoner said, "Yes, that is the best; send for the police." I then asked the prisoner again why he had done it for. He replied, She has seen a great deal of trouble, and so have I; her troubles are at an end - mine an not. She knows no more; she is better off that over she was; but as for me when I return to London I shall be under sentence of death. "He struck his hands when he said this. I said to him, "What, for commuting a double murder - murdering your wife and child?" He replied, "No, for what I have done behind, or left behind. I say no more." He then said to me, "There is a piece of paper under her right arm; take it and take care of it." It was a long strip of paper, with blood on it. and while I was looking at it I heard a sound of something being thrown into the fireplace, and when I looked round I saw a great difference in the appearance of the prisoner, and asked him where his whiskers and moustache were. He replied that he had thrown them down there, pointing to the fender. I searched and found the spectacles, and the prisoner then took the moustache and the whiskers from his pocket, and gave them to me. Three policemen then came into the room, and I charged the prisoner with the murder of his wife and child, and I handed over to the police the pistol, the whiskers, the moustache, and the spectacles. Superintendent Livick then arrived, and he asked the prisoner his name, and he said it was Stephen Forward, but he must tell him that he had been going by the name of Ernest Walter Southey. Livick then asked him if the dead woman was his wife, and he said "Yes, it is my lawful wedded wife."

Mr. Smith was then about to cross-examine the witness, but I the prisoner interposed, and said he could not consistently allow anyone to speak for him. He said that he wished to ask the witness questions himself.

Mr. Justice Mellor said that he could not allow him to do so.

He had a counsel, and he should communicate with the attorney who was conducting his case. If he wished to repudiate the assistance of counsel he might do so, but he again cautioned him that if he did so, his learned counsel could not be permitted; to interfere.

The prisoner then held a conference with Mr. Gould, his attorney, and after some delay, Mr. Smith said he was instructed that the prisoner was not in a fit condition of mind to decide whether he should conduct his own defence or not.

Mr. Justice Mellor said that placed the Court in some difficulty, and probably the better course would be to empannel a jury to try whether the prisoner was in a fit state of mind to take his trial, or to decide what course should be taken. He must say that he had not observed the slightest indication that the prisoner was of unsound mind.

After some discussion the same jury were empanneled to try the question whether the prisoner was at the time of unsound mind and fit to take his trial. There appeared, however, to be some difficulty as to whether this course could be taken, and eventually the trial proceeded.

Mr. Smith cross-examined the witness:- He said he had known the witness 15 years, and at that time he was 20 years old, but he did not know where he was living. His father and mother died when he was very young, and the only other relation the witness ever heard of was a half-brother. His guardian was a Mr. Elvey. The prisoner was married at Hastings. The witness then said that he was certain the deceased woman loved the prisoner dearly, notwithstanding his conduct towards her.

The prisoner here shrieked out, "I am no murderer; she knew I was no murderer." He then began to rave and complain in the most vehement manner of the treatment he had received. Several minutes elapsed before the trial could be proceeded with.

In answer to further questions put by Mr. Smith, Mr. Ellis said he believed that the prisoner’s wife had no suspicion that he was connected with any other woman. The prisoner did not converse very freely with him when he saw him on the night of the 9th of August, but he appeared to be perfectly calm and collected. He was as calm as a man could possibly be. He could see the dead body of his wife, and was standing close to her feet. The body of the child had rolled down two or three stairs, and there was a large quantity of blood. The prisoner did not appear to be at all excited when he said that when he returned to London he should be under sentence of death.

When the witness left the box the prisoner called out, in an affected tone, "Mr. Ellis, I thank you for your kindness to Mrs. Forward."

Adelaide Ellis, the daughter of the last witness, was then examined, and she corroborated his evidence, but did not depose to any additional facts.

In cross-examination she said that the prisoner complained of his trouble, and said that he had nothing to keep him with now. The deceased then said that if this was so she should be glad to know what motive he had for coming to find her out, and she said that he must have some motive. The prisoner made no reply to this observation of his wife. The deceased, she said, had frequently told her that she would not believe that the prisoner had formed a connection with any other woman. The prisoner made no attempt whatever to escape.

Mr. Robert Hicks, a surgeon practising at Ramsgate, proved the nature of the injuries that had been received by the deceased. There were two wounds, one behind the left ear and another under the left eve. There was also a third wound on the head. They were all gun-shot wounds. The prisoner was in the room, and he came up to him and put a ball cartridge into his hand, but did not say a word. There was a wound on the head of the child which had penetrated the skull, and the brain was protruding. On examining the head of the deceased woman he found the two halves of a bullet, which had apparently been cut by coming in contact with the sharp edge of the bone.

William Greyson, a police-constable stationed at Ramsgate, proved that he was called in, about ten o’clock, to Mr. Ellis’s and he saw the dead bodies of a woman and a child. As he was going out of the house with the prisoner they had to pass the dead body of the child, and when the prisoner saw it he dropped down on his knees and took the body in his arms — as well as his handcuffs would admit — and kissed it.

Cross-examined:- The prisoner appeared to be quite calm and collected all the time. He pointed to the dead body of his wife, and made some remark, but there was so much confusion that witness did not hear what he said.

Mr. Livick, the superintendent of the Ramsgate police, proved the circumstances connected with the arrest of the prisoner, and he said that when he told him he would be charged with the wilful murder of his wife and child, he replied "Ah, Mr. Livick, if you knew all." He subsequently told the prisoner that he would also be charged with the wilful murder of three children at the Star Coffee-house, Red Lion-street, and he said that he wished to make a written statement with reference to that matter. He was furnished with the necessary materials, and he then wrote down the following statement:—

"August 10, 1865, Police-station, Ramsgate.

"On Monday, the 7th instant, I took three children, whom I claim as mine by the strongest ties, to the Star Coffee-house, Red Lion-street, Holborn. I felt for these children all the affection a parent could feel. I had utterly worn out and exhausted every power of mind and body in my efforts to secure a home, training, and a future for these children; also the other five persons I felt hopelessly dependent upon me. I could struggle and bear up no longer, for the last support had been withdrawn from me. My sufferings were no longer supportable; my very last hope had perished by my bitter and painful experience of our present iniquitously defective social justice, and for this I shall be charged with murder, for criminal murder as well, in the truest, strongest sense of the charge. I deny and repudiate the charge, and charge it back on many who have by their gross and criminal neglect brought about this sad and fearful crisis. I charge back the guilt of these crimes on those high dignitaries of the Church and State, and justice, who have turned a deaf ear to my heart-broken appeals, who have refused me fellow-help in all my frenzied struggles, who have impiously denied the sacredness of human life, the mutual dependence of man, and the fundamental and sacred principle on which our social system itself is based. Foremost among these I charge (and then he mentions a number of well-known and distinguished gentlemen.)

Mr. Livick then went on to say that the prisoner was very anxious that his statements should be made public; and he read them when he was under examination before the magistrates. The prisoner also wished him to send the telegraphic message that had been mentioned, but he did not do so. When the prisoner was before the magistrates the second time some person endeavoured to take a photographic likeness of him, and the prisoner protested against it being done, and the magistrates stopped it. When the prisoner was told that in addition to the charge of murdering his wife and child he would also be accused of murdering three children at the Star Coffee-house, Holborn, he wished to know whether he could make his selection on which charge he would be tried, and witness told him ho was unable to say whether he would be permitted to do so.

Cross-examined:- When he first saw the prisoner he was sitting on a sofa close by the dead body of his wife. He was quite unmoved, and there was nothing at all particular in his appearance. Witness did not see the prisoner point to the body of his wife. He did not find a large bundle of letters in the bundle the prisoner had left at his lodging at Ramsgate. He did find one letter, and had shown it to the solicitor for the prosecution. It was addressed to Mr. Parr, the superintendent of the Worcester police, and was in the prisoner’s handwriting.

The letter was read. It was to the effect that the superintendent was at liberty to inform the Earl of Dudley that the writer of the letter had protected him from some serious and hidden danger, but that his powers to do so in future had ceased.

It was signed "E. W. Southey."

At this stage of the case the trial was adjourned.

Thursday.

The case for the prosecution was resumed this morning, and when the prisoner was placed at the bar, he again bowed most respectfully to the Court. As on the previous day, he had a large bundle of papers under his arm.

Mr. Josiah White said that he resided at Old Ford, Bow, and had become acquainted with the prisoner during the last twelve months. He know him by the name of Southey, and the first he know of him was his coming to inquire after the three children, who were at the time living at witness’s father's house. He frequently came to inquire about the children. The prisoner during a portion of this time wore a beard and moustache. On the Saturday before the children were found dead the prisoner called upon witness, and said that he (witness) knew Mrs. White’s feelings with regard to the children, and how she would like to have them back again, and he asked witness to get them from his father, and bring them to the Opera Hotel, in Bow-street. Witness made an appointment for the following evening, and also inquired of the prisoner where the children were to be taken to, and the prisoner said he believed they were to be taken to Australia. He communicated with his father, and saw the prisoner at the appointed time and told him that his father was rather reluctant to give them up, but he thought he might rely upon having them on the following evening. The prisoner then said that his father need not be particular about their appearance, and he also said that Mrs. White was in the west, by which he understood that she was at Brighton. Another appointment was then made, but the prisoner did not come to his time, and he said he had lost a train at Clapham Junction, and that it had interfered with all his arrangements. Witness then suggested that the prisoner might take the children somewhere for the night, and at the same time told him that if he did not take them his father would not let him have them again, as he would think he was "humbugging" him. After calling at one or two places to see if they could obtain accommodation for the children for the night, unsuccessfully, the prisoner went into the Star Coffee-house, and when he came out he said they had got a room that would do nicely, and he then asked witness to go and fetch the children from his father’s house in Featherstone-buildings, which was close by. He did so, and when the prisoner saw the children he shook hands with them and asked them how they were, calling them by name. The prisoner then went towards the Star Coffee-house, and he heard no more of the children until his father gave him some information, and he was afterwards examined before the coroner.

Cross-examined:- Witness was not intimately acquainted with the prisoner, but only saw him occasionally when he called upon him at the office in which he was employed in Gracechurch-street. He always came to him in reference to the children and to Mrs. White. He was aware from what was stated in the Earl Dudley case that Mrs. White was very intimately acquainted with the prisoner. He never noticed anything strange or unusual in the demeanour of the prisoner. He always inquired very kindly and affectionately after the children, and when he called upon him, it was always upon the subject of something that was to be done for their welfare upon one occasion the prisoner said that he thought he should be able to get the £1200 he had won from Lord Dudley's brother at billiards, but he was always quite calm and collected. He understood from the prisoner that the children were going to Australia, and that Mrs. White was going with them. He left the children with the prisoner on Monday, the 7th of August, and he heard that they were found dead on the following morning. When he left the prisoner he appeared very anxious to find some comfortable place for them.

Re-examined:- Witness believed by report that Mrs. White had gone to Australia.

Elizabeth Clifford proved that she assisted her father in the management of the Star Coffee-house, Red Lion-street, Holborn, and she remembered the prisoner coming there to ask whether he could have a bed for three children. This was on the 5th of August, and on the 7th he came again, and asked if he could have a bed for three little boys, and he was told he could, and he paid for it and went away. He returned about ten o'clock with three little boys, and they were put to bed.

Some other evidence was then adduced to show what occurred at the coffee-house, the finding of the dead bodies, &c. The facts were only briefly narrated, the object of the evidence being merely to explain the allusion made by the prisoner in the statement he made before the Magistrates at Sandwich to the three children who had been destroyed in London.

Mrs. Mary Anne Thompson, who resides at Bellevue-place, Ramsgate, deposed that about six o’clock in the evening of the 8th of August, the prisoner engaged a bed at her house, and slept there that night. He brought a parcel with him which she afterwards delivered to Mr. Livick, the superintendent of police. The prisoner went to bed about eleven o clock at night, and went out in the morning between six and seven. At this time the prisoner appeared to have a large beard and moustache, and he wore thick glasses. Witness heard of the murder in King-street on the same morning.

Mr. L. A. Hill, the governor of Sandwich Gaol, deposed that the prisoner was remanded to his custody from the 10th of August, and remained under his charge until last Friday. Witness saw him frequently three or four times during the day, and he had particularly noticed his demeanor and conduct, and in all respects he had acted like a rational being.

By the Court:- There was nothing whatever in his appearance at any time that led witness to believe that he was of unsound mind. He always seemed to comprehend everything that was said to him, and everything that was done.

Cross-examined:- The prisoner was in witness’s custody for more than four calendar months, and it was his duty to watch the demeanor of prisoners. He had had conversations with the prisoner a great many times, but never in reference to this charge. The prisoner frequently expressed a desire to make some statement to the visiting justices, but it was thought better that he should not be allowed to do so. Witness had never said to anyone that the prisoner was a very queer man, and he had no recollection of having made use of such an expression either to Mr. Livick or to the prisoner's attorney. Witness was not examined before the coroner, either at Ramsgate or in London.

Mr. Livick, the superintendent, was recalled, and in answer to questions put by the learned judge, he said that the prisoner made the statement that had been produced on the 10th of August, the day after the murders were committed.

Mr. Emmerson, a surgeon, at Sandwich, and who acts in that capacity at Sandwich Gaol, was then examined, and he gave similar evidence with regard to the condition of mind of the prisoner to that of the governor. He said the prisoner always appeared to act like a reasonable man, and he saw nothing whatever in his conduct or demeanour to lead him to the conclusion that his mind was in the slightest degree affected.

Cross-examined:- Witness had been connected with the medical profession since 1839, and had been medical officer to the gaol ever since that time. During this period two or three cases of insanity had come under his cognisance in the gaol, but he had had several cases of insanity in his general practice. The whole of these were well-defined cases of insanity. Witness was well acquainted with the distinction between mania and monomania. The latter would be a delusion on one particular subject, and the former would be a case where there were delusions upon various subjects. Witness had heard a great deal of the evidence that was adduced on the previous day, and he had from time to time seen him in the gaol, but his health was so good that it was not necessary to converse with him upon that subject, and it was not his custom to talk with the prisoners. He should certainly have abstained from holding any conversation with the prisoner in reference to the crime of which he was accused. If the health of the prisoner was good he made his bow to him at once. (A laugh.) The prisoner had attempted to converse with him upon the subject of his crime more than once.

Here the prisoner began to shriek and groan violently, and exclaimed that he felt as though he had galvanic batteries all over his body. He then shrieked out "Oh, I ought never to have been brought here." He elevated his hands, and appeared in a state of dreadful agony, and several minutes elapsed before the trial could proceed.

In answer to further questions put by Mr. Smith to Dr. Emmerson that gentleman said that he had strenuously avoided having any conversation with the prisoner upon the subject of his crime. He never gave the state of his mind any consideration, because he had no idea that his mind was affected, and no report was made of anything in his conduct that would lead to such a suggestion.

The prisoner here again became violent, and exclaimed "I am a murdered man — a murdered man."

Cross-examination continued:- Witness was not aware that persons afflicted with monomania were in the habit of resorting to very extraordinary expedients to disguise themselves when they were about to commit some act of violence. Persons afflicted with monomania wore undoubtedly very liable to commit acts of violence.

The prisoner here said:- "Why, the doctor said he was about to 'administer to a mind diseased,' the very first time he saw me."

In further cross-examination Dr. Emmerson said that a person afflicted with monomania was very likely, after having committed an act of violence, to be perfectly calm, and to make no attempt at escape, and also to avow what he had done and that these were all, undoubtedly symptoms of that disease. He had heard the evidence as to the conduct of the prisoner in this ease, after the crime had been committed, but that evidence did not at all lead him to the conclusion that the prisoner was of unsound mind. The witness then explained that what he meant to convey to the Court was, that a person who so acted might be sane, or might be insane.

Re-examined:- He purposely avoided having any conversation with the prisoner, and during the time the prisoner was under his charge he saw no indication of insanity in him.

The learned Judge inquired of the witness whether he had seen any such acts of violence and appearances of expression as had been exhibited by the prisoner during the trial.

Dr. Emmerson said he saw nothing of the sort during the time the prisoner was in gaol.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- If any person was suffering either from heavy losses or other troubles to such an extent as to produce monomania, would it not be also likely to affect his general health.

Dr. Emmerson said that it certainly would do so in his opinion. The general state of the prisoner’s health improved while he was in gaol.

Mr. Hill, the governor of Sandwich gaol, was re-called, and he stated that upon three occasions the prisoner exhibited the same appearance of emotion and hysteria that he had done in the dock. Once, was when he was refused by the visiting justices the privilege of having a light in his cell at night, and another time was when he did not hear from his solicitor as he had expected. The attack subsided in a very few minutes.

Major Bannister, the governor of Maidstone Gaol, said that at Maidstone, and also while he was connected with one of the government convict prisons, he had had a great deal of experience with reference to criminals, and he had paid great attention to the prisoner. He believed him to be a very intelligent man, and his conduct on all occasions had been perfectly rational, and he never observed the slightest indication of insanity. Down to the time of his appearing in the dock on the previous day witness considered the prisoner to be perfectly capable of understanding and appreciating anything that was done or said to him.

Cross-examined:- Witness could not say that he had ever observed anything extraordinary or eccentric in the prisoner's conduct. Last Sunday the prisoner refused to go to chapel, but that was all that ne remembered to have particularly occurred on that day. The prisoner stated a variety of arguments why he would not go to chapel, and one of them was that he had not sufficiently made up his mind as to what religious faith he should adopt. When he entered the chapel he loudly protested against being compelled to be present, and he then sat quiet during the whole of the service.

Re-examined:- The prisoner said he was of no faith, that he did not belong to the Established Church, and that he had no business to be at chapel. Witness was not present, but the circumstances were reported to him.

Dr. Joy, the medical officer of Maidstone gaol, said he had had a great deal of experience in cases of insanity, and he considered the prisoner was perfectly sane, and quite competent to understand everything that took place in court. He attended to the prisoner when he had the paroxysms on the previous day. This condition arose from a sore of hysteria occasioned by over excitement; but when the fit subsided, he was perfectly competent to understand everything that was going on. From the prisoner’s conversations the impression was created in witness’s mind that he desired to produce a particular notion in his mind with regard to his condition.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- Will you explain what you mean by that?

Witness:- I believe that his object was to create an impression in my mind that he was insane. I conversed with him purposely for nearly an hour on Saturday evening, and he went through the history of his whole life. I said but little to him, being more anxious that he should talk, and the conviction created in my mind was, that he was perfectly sane at that time, but of a very excitable temperament.

Cross-examined:- The prisoners manner was excited but perfectly coherent. I should certainly not judge whether a man was insane or not by merely looking at him, and I should certainly consider it very unsafe to do so.

Re-examined:- I paid particular attention to the prisoner, because the case was one of importance.

The printed papers that were found in the room where the murders were committed at Ramsgate were then put in and read. They presented the appearance of printed proof sheets, and consisted of a rhodomontade story about the manner in which his life had been passed, his proceedings in connection with billiard-playing, his connection with the Hon. Dudley Ward, &c., and his winning of the £1,172 from him. The statement has already appeared in extenso on several occasions.

Mr. Justice Mellor observed that it would be well that he should state that these papers were only introduced with a view to show the state of the prisoner’s mind, but it should be understood that a great injustice would be done if the jury were for a moment to believe that the statements relating to Earl Dudley and other persons whose names were mentioned had any foundation.

The case for the prosecution was then closed, and the Court adjourned for a short period.

Mr. E. T. Smith then proceeded to address the court on behalf of the prisoner. After alluding to the very important and extraordinary character of the inquiry, he said he was supported by the certainty that he was addressing an impartial tribunal, and that they would give the fullest effect to the observations he should make to them, and which, he hoped, would have the effect of inducing them to come to a just and merciful decision. He then said that it was a perfectly clear axiom of the English law that a man who caused the death of another was originally responsible unless he was in an unsound state of mind and incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and he said he hoped to be able to satisfy them that at the time these dreadful acts were committed the prisoner was not a responsible being. The learned counsel then called the attention of the jury to the evidence in the case, and reminded them that it was clear that originally the prisoner and his wife were on terms of the greatest affection, and that there did not appear to be the slightest ground or motive for the commission of the act of murder that was committed upon her, still less for the other wholesale murders that were committed just before. It would be idle for him to attempt to deny that the prisoner had been guilty of the act of murdering three children in Holborn; and it was clear that within 36 hours of the time when this was done two other diabolical and dreadful murders were committed by him; and he asked them, as men of common sense, whether it was not almost apparent that such acts could not have been committed by a man who was of sound mind, or who was aware of the nature of the acts he was committing. He submitted that it was clear that the prisoner could not have known what he was doing when he committed those dreadful acts. If he had any object at all, murder was the object of his life, and all he sought for was to destroy the lives of every one who was connected with him. He then proceeded to urge that it was apparent, from the statements that were last made, that so early as 1864, when they appeared to have been written, the prisoner had something that seemed to press heavily upon his mind, and he thought it was a fair inference to be drawn that his reason was in the end completely overturned, and that he had committed those dreadful acts when he was in that condition. The learned counsel next proceeded to refer to the question of insanity, and cited a number of cases, among which was that of the prisoner M’Naughten, who was tried for the murder of Mr. Drummond, ana said that there were a great number of instances in which persons were proved to have been perfectly rational upon almost every subject out that with reference to one particular matter they were undoubtedly under a delusion, and that they committed acts of homicide and violence under the influence of that delusion. He next proceeded to remark upon the demeanour of the prisoner at the time the dead body or his wife was lying before him, and he urged that this demeanor was utterly inconsistent with the supposition that the prisoner was responsible for his actions. The learned counsel concluded an able but brief address by expressing an earnest hope that when the jury had heard the evidence he should lay before them they would feel themselves justified in returning a verdict that would have the effect of preventing the necessity of the life of the prisoner being sacrificed upon the scaffold.

The following evidence was then adduced for the prisoner:—

Mr. James Dulvey said:- I am a physician and general practitioner at New Brompton, near Chatham. I have heard the evidence in this case, and have had an opportunity of seeing the prisoner in his cell in the prison. I conversed with him for some time, and the result I arrived at was that his mind was thoroughly unhinged. I particularly remarked his appearance, and noticed a wildness in his eve, and his pulse was very quick, which denoted a good deal of irritability of constitution. I have also noticed the prisoner’s conduct in court, and the opinion I have formed from it is that he is insane. I believe I can distinguish between feigned and real insanity, and I am of opinion that the prisoner is not feigning appearances to deceive. The witness was then asked his opinion with reference to the evidence that had been adduced as to the conduct of the prisoner at the time the murders were committed, and he said that in his judgment all the acts of the prisoner were consistent with the supposition of insanity.

Cross-examined:- I went to the prisoner at the request of Mr. Gould, the prisoner’s attorney, and I only saw him on that one occasion. I conversed with him at first upon ordinary topics, and I did not tell him that I was a medical man. He had a quantity of papers before him, and he appeared anxious to read them, and went on rambling from one to another. It appeared to me that the prisoner was under a delusion about religious matters. He said he had no faith and no creed, and went on to talk about John Stuart Mill.

Mr. Poland:- Well, that is no proof of insanity. (A laugh.) You are aware that Mr. Mill is the member for Westminster. (A laugh.)

Witness:- Certainly. He then went on to say that the prisoner appeared to think that he had killed these people under a sense or duty. He said that he and his wife had been wandering about London in a state of destitution, and he thought it was better that they should be put out of the world. He believed that he did not mean his real wife, but that he referred to the woman with whom he had been living. He also said that Lord Ward had refused to give him any money, and that he and his wife had been refused admission at some night refuge, and that this had completely upset him. He talked in a very rambling and incoherent manner, and appeared to think that this state of things had justified him in putting his wife and child out of the world. The prisoner appeared to be perfectly aware that he was to be tried for murder, and that his life was at stake.

By the learned Judge:- Witness was of opinion that the unsoundness of mind under which the prisoner was suffering was chronic, and that it had existed for a considerable time. He did not believe that he was aware that murder was crime. When the prisoner said that if he went back to London he should be liable to suffer death witness considered that it was an indication that the prisoner was aware that the punishment for the crime of murder by law was death. He also believed at the time the prisoner was talking to Mr. Ellis that he was quite competent to distinguish between right and wrong. Hysteric affections were not at all indicative of unsoundness of mind.

Dr. Frederick Fry, a surgeon, who had been in practice at Maidstone for 36 years, and who is also senior surgeon to the West Kent Hospital, deposed that he saw the prisoner on Wednesday morning before the Court sat, and conversed with him for about half an hour, and the conclusion he arrived at was that the prisoner was a man of unsound mind, and not responsible for his acts. He formed this opinion partly from his appearance, and partly from his discourse, and also from an extraordinary delusion that he had that "the occasion," as he said, required that he should commit the two murders of which he was accused. The witness went on to say that he had heard the evidence that had been given, and he was of opinion that the calm demeanour of the prisoner after committing two such dreadful murders was in itself a proof of insanity.

In cross-examination the witness said that he had never been surgeon to a gaol, and had not had any experience with the criminal class. He also said that he was aware from his reading, and other circumstances, that very great criminals had repeatedly exhibited the utmost calmness after the commission of the crimes of which they were accused.

By the learned Judge:- Witness had very great doubt whether the prisoner was thoroughly aware of the nature of the present proceedings, or knew that he was upon his trial for murder.

Mr. Sutton, a surgeon, practising at Sittingbourne, gave similar evidence, with regard to the prisoner to that which had been deposed by the last two witnesses. He also expressed a strong opinion that the prisoner was a person of unsound mind. One ground that, he stated, induced him to come to this opinion was that the prisoner told him that he considered the murders he had committed were perfectly justifiable, and that he had done a virtuous act.

Cross-examined:- Witness saw the prisoner only on Wednesday, the same day on which he was to be tried for the murder. He was introduced to the prisoner by his solicitor, Mr. Gould, as a medical man, and the prisoner immediately began to read a rambling statement relating to his life and history, and he had a great deal of trouble to stop him.

In answer to a question put by the learned Judge, the witness said that he believed the prisoner knew that he was now being tried for the crime of murder, and that he understood everything that was going on, and that he was reasonable upon every other question except the one relating to these murders. He also thought that the prisoner was not labouring under homicidal monomania generally, but only towards certain individuals.

This closed the case for the defence, and Mr. Smith then proceeded to sum up the evidence that had been adduced for the prisoner.

Mr. Poland, after a brief adjournment, made a most able reply on behalf of the Crown. He reviewed the whole of the circumstances connected with the specific offence for which the prisoner was then upon his trial, and he asked the jury whether they could put their fingers upon any one single circumstance that could induce them to come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner was perfectly rational and of sound mind and responsible for his conduct ana for the acts that were committed by him. That the prisoner was a man of excitable temperament —that he fancied he had received some wrong or other at the hands of society — he did not pretend to deny, and under the influence of that feeling he had written the rhodo-montade statements that had been referred to in the course of the inquiry; but it appeared to him that the true explanation of this matter was that the prisoner would not work and earn a respectable living in the position of life in which he was placed, and finding he could not succeed in his endeavours to obtain a livelihood by other means, either for the sake of notoriety, or with some other object, he committed these dreadful acts. Under these circumstances he submitted that it would be monstrous indeed if the prisoner were to be allowed to escape on the ground that he was insane, and he reminded the jury that no witnesses had been called to support that defence except a few medical men, who were no doubt of great respectability, who were total strangers to the prisoner, and who only saw him for a short time just before the present trial.

Mr. Justice Mellor then proceeded to sum up, and he observed that in consequence of the course the proceedings had taken one of the questions the jury would have to decide was whether, at the present moment, the prisoner was in a fit condition of mind to take his trial, and if they considered he was the more important question would remain for their consideration, whether he had been guilty of the crime of wilful murder. The learned judge then went on to say that he felt that it was hardly necessary for him to remind the jury that they were in no way responsible for the consequences that would follow their verdict, and that it would be a very sad thing for the interests of them all if a jury were to allow themselves to be in any way biased by other considerations than those which arose from the evidence that was laid before them, or were to refrain from returning that verdict which could only be conscientiously arrived at upon the testimony that was before them. With regard to the plea of insanity he felt bound to say that it was certainly very remarkable that the only witnesses who had been called for the purpose of establishing that plea were persons who had never seen him until the last few days, and not a single friend or acquaintance of the prisoner had been called to speak to his condition before these occurrences took place. His lordship then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the evidence on both sides with regard to the question of insanity, and said that, after all, the real question was, whether the prisoner was aware that he was committing an act that was wrong, and contrary to law — in other words, a crime; and if the jury were satisfied that he possessed that knowledge they ought to find him "guilty." If, on the other hand, the evidence created a if reasonable doubt in their minds upon that question, then they ought to acquit him.

The Jury retired to deliberate at a quarter to five o'clock, but in less than ten minutes they returned into court and said they were agreed upon their verdict.

Mr. Reed, the deputy clerk of arraigns, then asked the jury whether they found that the prisoner was of sound mind and understanding, and competent to take his trial?

The Jury replied that they did.

Mr. Reed next inquired whether they found the prisoner guilty or not guilty of the felony and murder whereof he stood indicted?

The Foreman, in an emphatic tone:- We say that the prisoner is "Guilty."

There was a slight attempt at cheering in the court when the verdict was pronounced, but it was, of course, immediately stopped.

Mr. Reed then put the usual formal question to the prisoner, whether he had anything to urge why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him?

Mr. Justice Mellor then put on the black cap, and was about to pass sentence, but his emotion was so great that he was unable at first to give utterance to his words.

The prisoner, taking advantage of this pause, with great coolness addressed the Court, and said, "“My lord, I wish to ask you a question as to my rights and privileges in my present position?"

Mr. Justice Mellor:- All that you have a right to do, by law, is to urge any point of law upon which you may contend that judgment ought to be arrested, and that I ought not to pass sentence upon you.

The Prisoner:- Although I am addressing you as my judge I wish it still to be considered that I am merely addressing my fellow man. When I came into this Court yesterday I had no knowledge whatever of the forms of law or what were my rights in my present position, and I have again to ask your lordship to inform me what those rights are.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- All I can tell you is to repeat that you have no right to do anything more than to urge such points of law as yon may consider would justify an arrest of judgment. At the same time I must inform you that you cannot be permitted to enter into any extraneous matter, and that you must confine yourself entirely to points of law.

The prisoner:- Then, my lord, in order to enable me to do this, I have to ask that you will make an order that two slates which were presented to me yesterday, and upon which I made some notes during the trial of points that occurred to me, may be restored to me. They were taken from me by the gaolers, and have not been returned, and I cannot say what I desire without the assistance of the notes that are upon them.

Mr. Justice Mellor:- It is quite useless for you to endeavour to enter upon any other subjects than those I nave mentioned, and it can therefor answer no good purpose to furnish you with the notes you refer to.

The Prisoner was then silent, and did not make another attempt to address the Court.

The learned Judge then said:- Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted, after a lengthened inquiry, of the crime of wilful murder committed upon the person of your own wife. This is a crime that under ell circumstances is one of the most dreadful character; but the details of your case are doubly so; and I will not trust myself to dwell upon them. I am afraid that you have for a long time been living a life of sin, and it would appear to be your object to cast upon society the blame for the consequences that resulted from your own misconduct. I have not the slightest doubt that you perfectly appreciate and understand everything that has taken place, and if the solemn thoughts connected with a God and a judgment ever entered into your mind I entreat you to make good use of the short time that is left to you in this world, and throw yourself at the foot of the Cross, and ask for that pardon which is never denied to a repentant sinner. His lordship then passed the usual sentence of death in the terms of the law.

The prisoner did cot exhibit the slightest emotion when the sentence was pronounced upon him, and he walked away from the bar without uttering a word.