The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-21 00:00:00

REVOLTING MUTILATION OF THE BODY OF

A STILL-BORN INFANT.

Yesterday, Charlotte Babbington (on view of the muti-
lated body of whose infant child an inquest was held yester-
day week at the Workhouse, when a verdict of " still-born"
was returned) was brought before Mr. Rushton, at the Police-
court, she having been detained on the charge of concealment
of pregnancy, until her health was sufficiently restored to

enable her to undergo a second harrowing investigation.
The prisoner still looked pale and feeble, and she was ac-
commodated with a chair within the bar. An extraordinary
degree Of uainfnl interest was excited amongst the crowded

auditory, from whose marked observation the prisoner
ap-
peared to shrink, holding her head down, so that her coun-
tenance, which betrayed much anxiety, could be but rarely
and partially seen.

The evidence was nearly the same as that adduced at the
inquest, reported in our paper of Teesday last; and as it is
altogether of a revolting nature, we shall repeat only the
heads, supplying also some few additional faots elicited by
the magistrates, and bearing more exclusively on the charge
of concealment.

Nancy Friel, the wife of Stephen Friel, said the prisoner
had lodged with them twice in Crooked-lane. On the first
occasion she remained two days. She was afterwards absent
a fortnight, and returned on Saturday week. She (prisoner)
had a bulky appearance, but witness imputed it at the time
to her dress. The prisoner never told her that she was in
the family way. On Thursday week, prisoner, on coming
down stairs in the morning, complained that she had been
poorly in the night, and that, being in the dark, she had
soiled the floor. Witness went up into the bedroom, and
found the bed (which had been turned) and the clothes and
floor stained with blood. She told the prisoner she had
done a bad job for her. The prisoner continued sitting up
all that day. In the afternoon witness found two pieces of
flannel cloth in the petty, both stained with blood, and
washed them, thinking they might be of some use. She in-
formed her husband what she had discovered. She after-
wards saw the little band and arm of a baby, which her
husband had lifted out of the petty with a pair of tongs;
she subsequently saw the remaining arm, the legs, body, and
head of a.child. There was no other female lodger sleeping
in the room or the house, and none of the rooms were let off
to other parties.

Betsey Hall, a woman occasionally employed by Mrs.
Friel in charring, said that she saw the prisoner at the house
on Monday week, and she appeared to be bulky for a person
of her appearance. She thought her in the family way, and
so expressed herself to Mrs. F. There was now a great al-
teration in the prisoner's appearance. She was not so broad
in the waist.

Stephen Friel corroborated the first witness in the former
part of his testimony. He did not take particular notice of
the prisoner's appearance when she came back after being a
fortnight absent. On Saturday night week be found some
clothes in the soil in the necessary. He searched again on
Sunday morning, and found a piece of black cloth, and drew
from under it the hand and arm of an infant. He went for
a police-officer.

Police Inspector Appleton said be went and searched the
petty ; he found a dark- coloured cloth, and a piece of a white
one, and fuund under them the other arm and band of the
child, and, subsequently, the two legs, then the body, and,
finally, the head—all of which had been dissevered. He
searched the room where the prisoner slept, and found a
white bedgown [produced] stained with blood, which the
prisoner afterwards owned. A phial was also found in the
room, labelled " black hellebore." He also found a pair of
scissors in the room stained with blood.

Mr. M'Clellan, house surgeon of the South Dispensary,
repeated his evidence, with some few additions as to the state
of the remains. It was the dissevered body of a full-grown
female child, and could not have been many days born.
There was slight decomposition of the chest, head, and ab-
domen. He examined the person of the prisoner, and found
that she had recently been delivered. He particularly exa-
mined the several parts of the child, and opened the chest.
He found the lungs were high up, and on trying them they
sunk in water. He was of opinion that the child had never
breathed. Children might breathe, and afterwards die in the
birth, in which case the lungs might partly float, or might
not ; but he considered the test in the present instance quite
conclusive that the child was still-born.

Mrs. Friel, being recalled, said the prisoner never men-
tioned anything to her about her peculiar situation; and no
baby clothes were found, nor any preparation made for the
expected birth of a child.
A female, who had acted as purse to the prisoner since she
had been in the workhouse, (after her apprehension,) said,
that on the Sunday afternoon after she came there she ad-
mitted that she had borne a child.

The prisoner declined throughout to put any questions to
the witnesses ; and on being asked, at the conclusion of the
inquiry, if she wished to say anything, replied that she had
nothing to say. Mr. Rushton said that she Must stand com-
mitted for concealment of pregnancy to take her trial at the
next assizes. She was then taken down. Mr. M'Clelland,
at the request of Mr. Rushton, afterwards examined the pri-
soner as to her health, with a. view to ascertain whether she

return from the Bridewell, he reported that she was suffi-
ciently recovered to be received into the hospital of that place.
The prisoner, we learn, was the wife of a Mr. Bahbington,
formerly a shopkeeper in Whitechapel, in this town, and
now deceased. We have further heard that she has two
children by her late husband, both now at school in Stafford-
shire ; that subsequently she was in the service of Mr.
Bibby, at Linacre Marsh, as housekeeper, but had left his
employ in consequence of his giving up housekeeping ; that
she thence went into the service of Lord Walscourt, (or
Waliott,) in Ireland ; left that place in April last, owing to
incapacity arising from weakness, and then came to lodge at
Mr. Friel's for the first time. _ During the fortnight she -

absent (as stated) from her lodgings, it appears that she was
residing at Wigan. She has been, it is added, respectably
brought up, and writes a good hand. She had no legal ad-
viser in the court, or at the previous inquest at the work-
house.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sin,—l am sorry to see a person of your acknowledged
penetration deceived by the specious arguments and mis-
statements of Mr. Earle in his articles in the Liverpool Mer-
cury„ which, from your article in your Tuesday's publica-
tion, would appear to be the case; and ask you, an im-
partial journalist, to insert this letter, and hope 1 do not de-
ceive myself in assuming that you will do so.
Yon do not appear to be aware of the fact that Mr. Earle
has been aware from the first that the author of " I u Silentio
et Spe," the plan which he patronises, is Mr. Elmes, and
that he has used, and is using, his influence to obtain for it
the first prize. You are also perhaps not aware that Mr.
Earle has not hesitated to conceal and misrepresent facts to
carry his own interested views, and that he has calumniated
the author of the successful prize in every way,—that, when
baffled on one point he has turned to another, the present
position being the fourth he has taken up,—that he has de-
clared that Mr. Elmes shall have the prize,—and you surely
cannot know that the parties " toe independent to be biassed"
to whom Mr. Earle has sent the plans to be referred have
already made two different statements each, as the Building
Committee can prove,—the last one unfavourable to the suc-
cessful plan,—or you surely would not call this an act of
fairness to the successful competitor, who may ask you why
were Mr. Dowdall and Mr. Forster, who gave their opinions
in favour of his plan, excluded from the number of the new
judges. Was it because they were " too independent to be
biassed ?" You do not mention in the article that the suc-
cessful plan was referred back a week in consequence of Mr.
Earle's misrepresentations, and which he was forced to recall,
and that it was then decided by the board to be entitled to
the first prize, but condemn the vascillating conduct of the
board in reversing the unjust decision which Mr. Earle in-
sidiously obtained in the absence of some of those who had
previously voted, and who were not then or now aware that
the board possesses the power of reversing a decision once
fixed. It appears, however there are several additions to the
Poor Law Act which are not generally known. lam sur-
prised that, knowing as you must the domineering character
of Mr. Earle, you should lend your powerful aid to further
his selfish and unjust object. You must be aware of the
paltry and low-minded persecution indulged in by Mr. Earle
against any person (not Mr. Scott in particular—witness
Mr. Stone, the schoolmaster) who may be unfortunate enough
to be upheld by any one but himself.
I am sick of the hypocrisy and humbug of Mr. Earle, who
is continually stating his belief that the successful architect's
design was seed by some of the guardians before it was sent
in, and that they knew it to be his when they saw it in the
room. Why, Mr. Earle and all the board knew Mr. Elmes'
plan from the particular manner he has of colouring his
plans; and I have no hesitation whatever in asserting, and
all his acts tend to prove it, that it is solely because it is Mr.
Elmes' that Mr. Earle backs it by his vote and leading arti-
cles, his misrepresentations, insinuations, in short, by all
the bad methods which are generally divided amongst com-
mittees, but which Mr. Earle seems to have a monopoly of
here. It is the only plan he ever voted for ! When the di-
vision was taken for the first prize, six were for the success-
ful one—Mr. Earle and another for Mr. Elmes When the
vote was for the second prize, four were for Coat of Arms,
and four, including Mr. Earle, for Mr. Elmes ! ! The
chairman, Mr. Earle, (how came he to be chairman that
day ?) then gave the castinc, vote for Mr. Elmes!! In short,
it was, and is, Elmes, Eames, Elmes. Why, then, all this
mocking and talk about prejudging?
You say, "To canvass a gentleman for his vote under such
circumstances is to offer him a gross insult ;" of this I accuse
Mr. Earle. Probably Mr. R. E. Harvey, Mr. Dover, and
Mr. Rimmer can prove the truth of this ; and I ask Mr.
Dover how he knew that (as he boasted) he would have had
the majority last Tuesday if the guardians had not been can-
vassed? When Mr. R. E. Harvey came to the meeting he
came for a certain purpose—to do the bidding of Mr. Earle,
who brought him. Mr. Rimmer never attended any meet-

ing till Tuesday, when he attended to vote against the suc-
cessful plan without knowing anything of the merits of the
question, and for that purpose only.
You may not be aware that when the motion was brought
forward to refer the plans to professional gentlemen, after
the prize had been awarded and the Sealed letters opened,
the chairman, the Rev. A. Campbell, expressed " his sur-
prise at Mr. Earle's motion," saying that he had never
known any parallel to it, and condemned it in the strongest
terms.

In conclusion, may I ask would it not have been better for

you to have studied botlesides of the question before writing
an article cm the subject, as it may tend seriously to injure
the successful architect in the opinion of your readers, who
may not previously have heard anything of the subject in

question.
The plans are on view at the Exhibition Rooms, Postoflice
Place, to take an impartial view of them yourself.
Sir, your's, &c.,
June 17th, 1842. PHIDIAS.
[Our correspondent may rest assured that we have not
been
„ deceived by the specious arguments and mis-state-
ments of Mr. Earle;" and we think he has left untouched
that point for which we contended—namely, perfect justice
being done to every competitor. With the decision of the
Board of Guardians we have no desire to quarrel; but we
hold ourselves at liberty to remark on the vacillating con-
duct which has characterised their proceedings during the
last few weeks. We have understood that Mr. Earle pledged
his honour as a gentleman that, until the seal of the letter
was broken, he did not know that silentio in spe was the
production of Mr. ' and although we disapprove of
much of Mr. Earle s Elmes ;
political conduct, upon which we have
fully and freely commented, we are not inclined to question
his honour or veracity as a gentleman. The remarks which
we made on Tuesday were to the effect, that if any member
of the Board of Guardians had been personally canvassed to
support a particular design, it was insulting to the person so
canvassed—unjust to other architects who had spent much
time, labour, and money on designs, expecting an impartial
selection—and very likely to deprive the town in future of
the valuable competition of architects of high character and
ability. We still hold to this opinion, which is that of every
man.who is not biassed by prejudice or blinded by partiality.
The truth ia, that certain members of the board were re-
solved at all hazards to carry
com-
petitors themselves expected justice ; the public expected
that the best plan would be chosen, no matter who might be
its author. A difference of opinion arose, more especially
when it became known that Mr. Scott's plan had been pre-
of those who .
viously seen by some had afterwards to sit in
judgment upon it. It was then resolved that it should be
left to the decision of certain professional gentlemen to choose
the best design, it having been previously ascertained that
none of them or their connexions were competitors; and we
n
are of opinion that none of the gentlemen who have sent i
plans will demur to this arrangement.
It appears that the
opinion of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Weightman had been asked,
not in reference to the whole of the designs, but only as re-
garded the plans selected by the members of the board; and
although we do not underrate the opinion of Mr. Forster and
these gentlemen could hardly be expected to
Mr. Dowdall,
be judges of architectural designs, or of the mode of their
execution. If we are correctly informed, Messrs. cunping..