The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 15, 1845.

MURDER, AT SALT-HILL

TRIAL OF JOHN TAWELL.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
AYLESBURY, FRIDAY.
We subjoin the summing up of Mr. Baron Parke, with
some additional particulars respecting the convict.
The Court was opened at eight o'clock, shortly after which
hour Mr. Baron Parke took his seat on the bench, and, after
the commencement of his summing up, the crowd came
singly and slowly in, making so great a noise, that, although
the reporters were directly over the jury-box, and his Lord
ship spoke in his customary clear and audible manner, a con-
siderable portion of his preliminary observations were entirely
lost, broken and disjointed portions of his sentences only
being audible.
His LORDSHIP said, the prisoner was charged with the
commission of a crime almost unparalleled in the history of
human wickedness. The question was one of fact, and it was
the duty of the jury to consider it, they being the judges of
the question of fact. He (Mr. Baron Parke) would offer
them such propositoins respecting the beating of the
law upon the case as he deemed necessary, aid as
such they should receive them from him ; but the
jury alone should decide upon the questions of fact.
He should inform them that the law with regard to criminal
proceedings bad been recently altered. Formerly, so far
back as the history of the law went, and during even a great
portion of his (Baron Parke's) own professional career, the
practice had been for the counsel for the prosecution simply
to state the case he was about to prove, without commenting
on it. The witnessses were called, and the prisoner's counsel
cross-examined them. Nothing but the merits of the case
itself was submitted to the jury, and the consequence was
that there was nothing to influence their minds in coming to
a conclusion. But it had pleased the Legislature to alter this
mode of conducting proceedings in criminal cases, and he
(Baron Parke) thought the alteration a wise one. Counsel
for the prisoner were now permitted to address such
observations as they -pinged to. the jury ; but one result
had been, that additional duty had been thrown upon the
judge, and he was now obliged 'to assume a line to dissi-
pate the effects of appeals to the feelings upon the minds of
the jury. It, therefore, became his (Baron Parke's) duty to
dissipate the effects of some of the observations of the
Learned Counsel for the prisoner. The case was to be
proved, as they had been told, by circumstantial evidence.
It was the only sort of evidence that could be obtained in
most cases of a similar nature. The most atrocious crimes
were committed in secret, but Providence had so ordered it
that some traces were frequently left, which were sufficient
to lead to the discovery of the perpetrators. The law had,
therefore, wisely provided that direct proof of crime was not
absolutely necessary; but, on the other hand, it was equally
true that by circumstantial evidence the case should be so
fully made out as to leave no rational doubt of its com-
mittal. He should, therefore, advise them to lay
down the rule, that they should first ("consider what
had been proved to their satisfaction, and then. to consider
whether all those facts were consistent with the guilt of
the prisoner. If they thought that they were consistent
with his guilt, and that there was nothing inconsistent with
it, and he could suggest nothing inconsistent in the evidence
except the prisoner's previous character, then they should
consider whether they were inconsistent with his innocence,
and they should remember that the existence of the crime
alleged was not inconsistent with the other facts of the case.
Whilst on that part of the question he should observe that
the Counsel for the prisoner had admitted all those facts, but
had asserted that the law required not only that those facts
should be proved, but that it should also be shown directly
that the deceased had died by poison, and that a sufficient
quantity of poison to produce death had been found in her
stomach. That was not true of the law. It was not neces-
sary to give direct and positive evidence in every step of
the case. There was no difference between direct and cir-
cumstantial evidence, if the evidence was sufficient to
satisfy their minds that death had ensued from poison.
It was not necessary to prove what quantity of that poi-
son was necessary to produce death by the testimony of
any person who had actually seen human life de.troyed by
it, nor was it necessary to prove that such a quantity as
would destroy life had been actually found in the body.
The only positive fact which the law requires to be proved
was the finding of the body, where such was possible. He
said " possible," because in such a case as a person being cast
overboard at sea, for instance, the body could not be pro-
duced, and the jury should be contented with positive evi-
dence of the wilful casting overboard. But where possible
the body should be proved to have been found.• This was
necessary, because formerly persons had been found guilty of
the murder of persons who were afterwards found alive.
The body of the deceased having been found, it was
to be considered whether the prisoner had adminis-
tered poison to her. The quantity was not necessary to be
proved. He (Baron Parke) agreed with the Learned Counsel
for the prisoner that it was necessary to prove that poison
had been administered, and that, if it had been, that the
question would be—whether it had been administered to the
deceased by the prisoner, or by herself. The only allega-
tion that she had .one so was that of the prisoner himself;
and if the jury thought the extraordinary story told by him
was worthy of credit, it would agree with the latter mode of
accounting for her death. But if they did not believe it,
they had no other conclusion left than that lie had committed
the crime imputed to him. The. Learned Judge then pro-
ceeded to comment upon the evidence of Mrs. Ashley and
others, who deposed to the perfect health and good spirits of
the deceased up to a few minutes previously to the discovery
of her lifeless body, and to the medical evidence of her state of
perfect internal bodily vigour, leaving no doubt that she had
not.died from natural causes. He then went to the evidence
of Messrs. Champneys and Pickering, the surgeons, who, on
opening the body of.the deceased on the day following her
death, at once smelt the odour of prussic acid. There, then.
was evidence at once of the presence of prussic acid in the
stomach on the day following a sudden death, accompanied
by appearances such as would be symptomatic of sudden
death from that powerful poison. Mr. Cooper, the
chemist, had analysed the contents of the stomach sub-
sequently, and found a quantity of pure prussic acid in it.
With regard to the quantity of prussic acid requisite-to kill
a human being, it had been proved that less than a grain
would kill in some casts, as appeared by the melancholy in-
stance so frequntly referred to of the seven epileptic patients
in Paris; and Mr. Cooper had proved that more than a grain
existed in the stomach of the deceased. His Lordship then
went to the consideration of the conduct of the prisoner, and
observed that it would be necessary for the jury to couple
that conduct with all the other evidence, in order to judge
how far it bore out or contradicted the inferences which
might be derived from it. It appeared that on the day in
question the prisoner had gone to the Paddington station of
the Great Western Railway, and had taken his place for
Slough. It was proved that he left his coat at the
Jerusalem Coffee-houselibefore going down, and he told
the waiter that he was going to dine at the west end of
the town. That was untrue, and he must have made
that false statement for some purpose or another. Ile went
down to Slough at five o'clock, and between six and
seven Mrs. Ashley went round to the deceased's house, in
consequence of the noise she heard of stifled screaming. She
met the prisoner in the garden in a state of agitation so great
that he could not undo the latch of the gate. She opened it
for him. As to the observations she had made about fearing
that her neighbour was ill, he could not say that the priso-
ner must have heard it, and therefore it went for nothing.
Let it pass. However, after she had got in at the door of
the deceased's house, she turned round and saw the prisoner
looking at her; and such was the effect upon her, that she
felt alarmed, and closed and fastened the .door. At seven
o'clock the prisoner was seen by a post-boy, and he was then
running towards the station. At ten minutes after seven he
was at the railway station. He was next seen getting into
an omnibus, and desiring to be set dawn at Herschel' House.
What his intention was in going to Herschel' House did not
appear. He was traced back again to the station, and an
alarm having been given, a signal was made by the electric
telegraph, and he was seen to alightfrom the railway carriage
at Paddington, and was thence traced home. When he
was taken up next morning, and told what he was taken
for, his answer was that he knew no oue at Slough. It had
been suggested by the Learned Counsel that that was lite-
rally true, because the deceased did not live exactly at
Slough, but a little distance from it. It had also been sug-
gested that he wished to prevent his wife from hearing of his
improper connexion. It would be for the jury to say
what degree of weight would be given to those explana-
tions. He had told several falsehoods respecting this trans•
action, and it was for the jury to say why he wished to keep
secret - his having been to the house of the deceased.
It appeared that, when the nature of the transaction, and
the reason why he was taken into custody, had been ex-
plained to him, that it would have been the part of any
reasonable man, if innocent, at once to have disclosed the
entire that he knew about it, and what had taken place.
There was abundant evidence to show that the prisoner was
at the house at the very moment the deceased had died.
When informed of the nature of the charge against him,
he told those falsehoods already mentioned, His Lordship
read over the conversations of the prisoner with the con-
stables when taken into custody, and then went on.
On the Friday, about one o'clock, the prisoner had an in-
terview with his legal adviser (Mr. Williams), and after that
interview, and not until after it, did he make any attempt at
explanation, or give any account of what had taken place,
and the account lie then gave was that extraordinary state-
ment which he (Baron Parke) should read at full length for
them. (His Lordship read the statement made by Tawell
to the two constables, in which he said the poor unfortu-
nate woman had once lived in his service; and gave the
account of her putting something out of the phial about the
size of a thimble into her glass, and then drinking it off,
&c.) Here, then, the prisoner had represented himself as
present when the poison was administered, and, as it was
found in her stomach, it was for the jury to say whether
the question did not amount to the simple one, of whether
she had destroyed herself, or the prisoner had adminis-
tered it. If he thought that she had been threatening
to poison herself, he certainly should at least have stayed
to see what the effect would really be upon her. The jury
should next observe, keeping that story of the prisoner's
in mind, that no such phial as that described by him was
found in the house. The fact was proved by Mr. Thomas,
who had sold him the poison in the morning, that the pri-
soner had prussic acid in his possession on that day. He
(Mr. Baron Parke) did not give much weight to the obser-
vation of prisoner's Counsel that he would not have been
likely to go back next day to the same shop for more if he
were conscious of guilt. because in cases of murder, espe-
cially in vases of murder by poison, it was found that great
precaution was not always used. The next question was
that of motive • and for the purpose of coming
to an opinion on that point, his Lordship thought it neces-
sary to give a brief history of the connexion between the
prisoner and the deceased. Having gone through that
portion of the evidence which detailed the commencement
of that connexion, his Lordship came to the scene be-
tween the prisoner and the deceased in his house, which
Baron Parke commented on as showing the extraordinary
affection and devotion of the deceased for the prisoner. With
striking self-devotion she said, that in order not to prevent
the union of the prisoner with the lady he was about to be
married to, she would go out of the world, and be dead to the
world, even to her own mother, from that day forth ; and the
jury had heard from that very mother, that from that time
she had never heard of her unfortunate daughter until after
tier death. She kept that promise. She did go out of the
world, and went from place to place, until she went to reside
at Slough. It appeared that there she had received from the
prisoner an allowance for her maintenance of 13/. a quarter, or
521. yearly ; and on the day in question it would seem he was
to have taken her her quarterly allowance. When taken into
custody the sum of 121. 10s. was found in his pocket. From
that fact it might be inferred that he had gone down with a
sort of mixed feeling, either of paying her the money, or, if he
had the opportunity, of accomplishing his purpose of poison ••
ing her. But as to his motive for destroying her, it had been
suggested that no man would commit such a dreadful crime:for
the sake of getting rid of the expense. That lie (Mr. Baron
Parke) should say was not a matter to be easily judged of.
His Lordship then went into theflvidence as to the alleged
attempt made by the prisoner to poison the deceased in Sep-
tember last. There was no sufficient proof on that occasion
that he had administered prussic acid to her; but It was re-
markable that after drinking porter with the prisoner on the
30th of September, she should have been so ill, and that after
drinking porter again with him on the Ist of January she
should be taken ill again and should have died. But no
direct and positive proof had been given that she had ac-
tually taken poison in September. It was only supposition.
His Lordship having thus prepared the jury for the questions