The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-12-18 00:00:00

DOUBLE EXECUTION IN LONDON.

Two murderers were executed in London on Mon-
day morning at eight o'clock within the prison of
Newgate, one being George -Pavey, aged 29, a house
painter; and the'other William Herbert, aged 54,
who described himself as having no occupation, but
who, until March last, when he returneato England,
had a small dairy farm in the neighbourhood of Mel-
bourne in Australia.

The Under Sheriffs arrived at the prison shortly be-
fore eight o'clock, and the prisoners were told that if
they wanted to make any commusication the Sheriff was
ready to hear them; but they both replied that they
had nothing further to communicate. Herbert
was the first who was taken to the scaffold. He
walked with a firm step, and exhibited very great
composure. The Rev. Mr. Jones, the ordinary,
accompanied Pavey, reading the Burial Service. He
also walked firmly. The ropes were soon adjusted
round the necks of the criminals, and just before the
drop fell, both prisoners said to the ordinary, "Good
bye, sir." They had a very deep fall, apparently more
than seven feet, but the ropes vibrated violently after
the fall. The time occupied in carrying out the execu-
tion, from the time Herbert first made his appearance
was under two minutes. A very large crowd as-
sembled outside the prison. Marwood was the
executioner.

Pavey, it will be recollected, was convicted of the
murder, accompanied by circumstances of great aggra-
vation, of a/little girl named Ada Shephard, eleven
years of age, who resided with her parents and some
other young children at Acton: He was employed
by the father of the child, in hi g occupation of
a painter, to do some work in the house,
and being left alone with the poor child he took
advantage of her unprotected condition to assault
her, and ultimately destroyed her life by inflicting
a fearful wound in her throat. At first he made an
absurd attempt to fix the crime upon a strange man
'Who, he said, induced him to quit the house by a sham
message from his master, desiring him to meet him at
a railway-station two miles off; but the falsehood was
so palpable, from all the other circumstances of the
case, that the jury, without any hesitation, returned a
verdict of guilty. If any doubt could possibly exist in
the mind of any one as to the-guilt of this Prisoner, it is
satisfactory to be able to state that since his conviction
hethas admitted his guilt, and, so far as outward.appear-
ance,goes, he appeared to be penitent, and to feelremorse
for his frightful crime. On Friday he wrote a letter to the
parents of the poor child, expressing his sorrow for
what he had done, and entreating forgiveness. rie is
stated to have conducted himself very well both before
and since his conviction; he was a regular attendant
at chapel, and he always paid great attention to the
ministrations of the Rev. Mr. Jones, the ordinary of
Newgate, who has been unremitting in his attention
to him, and in endeavouring to bring him to a prow
sense of his condition. Pavey leaves a wife and one
child, who paid their last sad visit to him on Friday
in last week.

The other culprit, William Herbert, was a man of
a very different stamp to Pavey. He had for several
years resided in Australia, where he and his wife kept a
small dairy farm. It appeared that he came to Eng-
land in March last, to lay claim to some property to
which he believed his wife was entitled; but he ascer-
tained that she had an elder brother living, and that
consequently his wife's claim was not maintainable,
and he was about to return to Australia at the time
the murder was committed. The deceased was his
sister-in-law, a married woman, named Jane Mes-
senger; and although the prisoner has pertinaciously
refused to-say-anything upon the subject, it has been
thought that the motive for committing the crime was
the refusal of the deceased to leave her husband and
accompany him to Australia. Having made an
appointment with the deceased to meet her in
Finsbury Park, upon meeting her there he
fired three shots at her with a revolver, thus instan-
tantaneously depriving her of life. He then fired
another shot at his own person, but only inflicting
slight injury, from which he speedily recovered.
No attempt has, it appears, been made from any
quarter to obtain a commutation of the capital punish-
ment in either case, and both prisoners have-from the
moment of their conviction appeared to be resigned to
the fate which they considered, from the character of
their offence, to be inevitable. Herbert has not made
any allusion to his crime since his conviction, and no
one has visitedhim. It appears that only one person
who was known to the prisoner has made application
to be allowed to see him; and the prisoner refused to
allow him an interview.