-
 
 IRotable jSngltsb trials 
 
 The Wainwrights
 
 NOTABLE TRIALS SERIES. 
 
 Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan Smith, 
 
 Advocate. 
 
 Dr. Pritchard. Edited by William Roughead. 
 The Stauntons. Edited by J. B. Atlay, Barrister- 
 
 at-Law. 
 
 Franz Muller. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
 The Annesley Case. Edited by Andrew Lang. 
 Lord Lovat. Edited by David N. Mackay. 
 Captain Porteous. Edited by William Roughead. 
 William Palmer. Edited by Geo. H. Knott, 
 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Mrs. Maybrick. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
 Dr. Lamson. Edited by H. L. Adam. 
 Mary Blandy. Edited by William Roughead. 
 City of Glasgow Bank Directors. Edited by 
 
 William Wallace, Advocate. 
 Deacon Brodie. Edited by William Roughead. 
 James Stewart. Edited by David N. Mackay. 
 A. J. Monson. Edited by J. W. More, Advocate. 
 Oscar Slater. Edited by William Roughead. 
 Eugene Marie Chantrclle. Edited by A. Duncan 
 
 Smith, Advocate. 
 The Douglas Cause. Edited by A. Francis 
 
 Steuart, Advocate. 
 
 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Edited by William Roughead. 
 Eugene Aram. Edited by Eric Watson, 
 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 J. A. Dicfcman. Edited by S. O. Rowan- 
 
 Hamilton, Barrister-at-Law. 
 The Seddons. Edited by Filson Young. 
 Sir Roger Casement Edited by Geo. H. Knott, 
 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 The Wainwrights. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
 
 IN PREPARATION. 
 
 Thurtell and Hunt. Edited by Eric Watson. 
 Burke and Hare. Edited by William Roughead. 
 Mary Queen of Scots. Edited by A. Francis 
 
 Steuart. 
 Steinie Morrison. Edited by H. Fletcher 
 
 Moulton. Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Particulars may be had from the Publishers. 
 Wm. Hodge & Co., Ltd., Edinburgh and London.
 
 H. B. Irving.
 
 Trial of 
 
 The Wainwrights 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon.) 
 
 With an Appreciation of the Editor 
 
 BY 
 
 SIR EDWARD MARSHALL HALL, K.G. 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 
 WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY, LTD.
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY, LTD. 
 
 GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 
 
 1920
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Late H. B. Irving, 
 
 Introduction, 
 
 Table of Dates, 
 
 The Trial 
 
 FIRST DAY MONDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 The Attorney-General's Opening Speech for the Crown, - 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xi 
 xix 
 xliii 
 
 Evidence for the Prosecution. 
 
 John Butler, 
 
 Alfred Philip Stokes, 
 
 10 
 
 Henry Turner, 
 Arthur Cox, 
 
 SECOND DAY TUESDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 
 
 William Andrews, 
 Alice Day, - 
 Matthew Fox, - 
 Joseph Newman, 
 J. C. M 'Donald, - 
 
 - 21 
 
 - 21 
 23, 129 
 
 - 28 
 29, 106 
 
 Edwin Allen, .... 30 
 Ellen Wilmore, - - - 30, 45 
 Henry Pollard, .... 41 
 Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor, - 41, 56 
 George William Rogers, 44, 129 
 
 THIRD DAY WEDNESDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 
 
 William Taylor, - 46 
 
 Mrs. Sophia Allen, - 47 
 
 John Lane, 48 
 
 Ernest George Eeles, 53 
 
 Edward William Frieake, - - 58 
 
 Alfred Cooper Woodward, - 62 
 
 Peter Crofts, ... 62 
 
 Alice Berry, .... 63 
 
 Philip Vincent, - 
 John Allen Little, 
 Edwin Mills Heard, 
 Mrs. Susan Wells, 
 Mrs. Jemima Foster, 
 James Humphries, 
 Mrs. Amelie Stanley, 
 John Baylis, 
 
 FOURTH DAY THURSDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 
 
 Mrs. Mary Jane Trew, 
 John Hood Pinnell, - 
 Charles Sawyer, - 
 Samuel Hessan Behrend, 
 Albert Francois, - 
 Mrs. Emma Izzard, 
 Walter Archer, - 
 George Lewis, 
 
 Charles Titiens, - 
 George W. Rogers, 
 Mrs. Jane Rogers, 
 John Matthew Steele, 
 George Overall, - 
 Herribin Mason Leets, 
 James Kay, 
 William Kay, - 
 James Wiseman, 
 
 - 76 
 78, 87, 104 
 - 85 
 - 88, 101 
 - 89 
 - - 89 
 - 89 
 - 91 
 - 93 
 
 2024510 
 
 - 94 
 
 - 94 
 
 - 95 
 
 - 95 
 
 - 96 
 
 - 96 
 97, 108
 
 Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 FIFTH DAY FRIDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 
 
 William Graydon, - 102 
 
 Henry Young, - 102 
 
 George William Forster, - - 105 
 
 Thomas Henn, - - - - 107 
 
 Frederick Pettigrew, - - 108 
 
 Francis Johnston, - - - 109 
 
 C. L'Enfant, - . - - 110 
 
 Charles Chabot, - . - 111 
 
 Henry William French, - - 113 
 
 Dr. F. G. Larkin, - - 114 
 
 Dr. Thomas Bond, - 123, 130 
 
 James Squires, - - - - 129 
 
 SIXTH DAY SATURDAY, 27ra NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 
 
 William Lewis Moet, - - - - - 130 
 
 Mr. Besley's Opening Speech for Henry Wainwright, - - - - 131 
 
 Evidence for Henry Wainwright. 
 
 Dr. Alfred Meadows, - - - 150 
 Dr. Frederick George Aubyn, - 152 
 Edward Martin, - - 154 
 
 Rev. John Thomas, - 
 William Thomas Good, 
 Donald Munroe and others, 
 
 157 
 158 
 158 
 
 SEVENTH DAY MONDAY, 29rn NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 
 Mr. Besley's Closing Speech for Henry Wainwright, 
 
 Mr. Moody's Opening Speech for Thomas George Wainwright, 
 
 159 
 165 
 
 Evidence for Thomas George Wainwright. 
 
 Alexander Arkell, - - - 177 | Charles George Graulier, - - 179 
 Mr. Moody's Closing Speech for Thomas George Wainwright, - - - 180 
 
 EIGHTH DAY TUESDAY, 30rn NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 The Attorney-General's Closing Speech for the Prosecution, 
 
 181 
 
 NINTH DAY WEDNESDAY, IST DECEMBER, 1875. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice's Charge to the Jury, - 
 
 The Verdict, - - 
 
 The Sentence, , . . . 
 
 206 
 232
 
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 H. B. Irving, - 
 
 Henry Wainwright, - 
 
 H. B. Poland, - 
 
 No. 215 Whitechapel Road, 
 
 Plan of Whitechapel Road, 
 
 Henry Wainwright, - 
 
 Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, 
 
 Douglas Straight, 
 
 Frontispiece 
 
 facing page xx 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 24 
 150 
 206 
 230
 
 The Late H. B. IRVING. 
 
 By Sir Edward Marshall Hall, K.C. 
 
 OWING to the lamented death of Mr. H. B. Irving, while this 
 volume was still in the hands of the publishers, I have been 
 asked to write a few words in memory and appreciation of him 
 as a criminologist. Harry Irving, as his friends always knew 
 and called him, first came into my life many years ago when I 
 was engaged at the Central Criminal Court in a case which 
 attracted a great deal of attention at the time. It was known 
 as the Graf ton Street or " Box " murder, the victim having 
 been put into a large trunk and left at the cloak room of a 
 railway station. The case took a very dramatic turn at the 
 trial, and the prisoner, a woman, was acquitted of murder 
 and convicted of manslaughter only, though, until all the 
 facts were elicited, it had seemed a hopeless case to defend. 
 Even at that time Irving was keenly studying criminal trials 
 and procedure, and he maintained that this case illustrated 
 very forcibly his view that in the French system the lack of effec- 
 tive cross-examination of hostile witnesses often worked grave 
 hardship to the accused. This view he repeats more than once 
 in his books on French criminals, and he often told me that 
 he considered that this and the hostile interrogation of the 
 prisoner by the presiding judge were the great blots on the 
 French method. From that time onwards I saw a good deal 
 of him, and he took the greatest interest in the criminal cases 
 in which I was briefed. 
 
 Even at Oxford, as I learn from mutual friends who were 
 undergraduates with him, that bent had declared itself. The 
 essay and discussion" societies, without which youthful Oxford 
 seemed unable to exist in the early nineties, had no attractions 
 for him otherwise than as meetings where he could listen to 
 or read papers on criminology. That, with the O.U.D.S., 
 
 zi
 
 The Late H. B. Irving. 
 
 monopolised his attention, somewhat to the detriment of hie 
 " schools." It was the same, I understand, while he was 
 reading for the bar. At Oxford he used to attend the Assize 
 Courts, and one of his New College contemporaries has told me 
 how his recital of what passed in those somewhat sordid present- 
 ments of life would enthral Junior Common Room afterwards. 
 It was always stated amongst his contemporaries in those days 
 that even then he had started on his " Life of Judge Jeffreys," 
 a work which certainly might have come from a far more 
 mature pen. One has only to go through the books that 
 he has produced, either as author or editor, to realise what 
 care and attention he must have given to criminology ; but if I 
 may be allowed to express my personal opinion, it was his keen 
 sense of drama, his great dramatic instinct, that made him 
 study criminals and their trials in search of the drama that 
 he knew he was sure to find. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable, but none the less true, that crime 
 and the history of criminals have a great attraction for very 
 many people who would not be suspected of such an interest. 
 In the introduction to his " Remarkable Criminals," Irving 
 recalls how his father, Sir Henry Irving, told him that one 
 night, when he sat up late with Tennyson, the latter said he had 
 not kept such late hours since a recent visit he had paid to 
 Jowett when the absorbing subject of conversation was 
 " Murders," and on this topic the poet and philosopher had 
 talked till the early morning. 
 
 In his preface to his Studies of French Criminals, Irving 
 opens with this quotation from Edmund Burke " The annals of 
 criminal jurisprudence exhibit human nature in a variety of 
 positions, at once the most striking, interesting, and affecting. 
 They present tragedies of real life often heightened in their 
 effect by the grossness of the injustice and the malignity of 
 the prejudices which accompanied them. At the same time, 
 real culprits, as original characters, stand forward on the 
 canvas of humanity as prominent objects for our special study." 
 In the first lines of the book itself, dealing with the history 
 of Lacenaire, he quotes from " Les Miserables " of Victor 
 
 xii
 
 An Appreciation. 
 
 Hugo " Every human society has what is called in theatres 
 a third sub-stage. It is the grave of the depths. It is the 
 cave of the blind. Man there becomes dragon. Hunger and 
 thirst are the point of departure; Satan is the point of arrival." 
 
 From these two quotations, taken together, may be gathered 
 the real reason of Harry Irving' s great interest in criminology. 
 For a man so strongly imbued with the dramatic instinct, he 
 possessed a very keen sense of justice and was intolerant of 
 persecution or tyranny in any form ; while he was a great be- 
 liever in the old-fashioned precision of our criminal procedure 
 and a great stickler for the observance of its technicalities. He 
 was not alone in deploring the somewhat haphazard way in which 
 indictments are now drawn under the present Act, and he 
 regarded the abolition or shall I say suspension ? of the 
 grand jury as a great blot on our administration of the criminal 
 law. Called to the bar, as he was, when quite a young man, 
 he might have had a great career in the criminal Courts, where 
 a sense of drama is never wasted and a good actor has 
 advantages which others lack. No counsel is allowed by the 
 rules of the profession to express his opinion upon the guilt or 
 innocence of an accused person, but if an advocate for the 
 defence can legitimately, in his advocacy, convey to the jury 
 the impression of his belief in his client's case, he has gone a 
 long way towards securing their verdict. Alas, how many 
 verdicts have been lost by clever men for the want of this 
 one little touch of the actor ! I well remember listening in a case 
 to a fine speech by a man who was a great speaker without 
 being a great advocate. The speech was perfect in composition 
 and logic, but it left one cold; whereas the speech in reply, 
 badly as it might read in the reports, was a human speech on 
 the level of its audience, and it won the verdict. A few days 
 later I happened to meet on of the jury and asked him how 
 they failed to be convinced by the other speech, " Oh," said 
 he, " the speech was right enough, but he didn't believe a 
 word of it himself; he had his tongue in his cheek all the time." 
 
 What a difference between that and the wonderful speech 
 that Sir Edward Clarke made in defence of Mrs. Bartlett 1 No 
 
 xiii
 
 The Late H. B. Irving. 
 
 one who had the good fortune to hear it had any doubt that 
 Clarke knew when he made it that he would secure a trium- 
 phant acquittal. I am not sure if Irving actually heard that 
 speech or not; I rather think he did, but we often discussed it 
 and he always said it was the best of the many fine speeches 
 that great advocate ever made. 
 
 Another thing that attracted Irving to the study of crime 
 and criminals was the accuracy of his mind, his love of 
 lucid and chronological arrangement of facts, and his devotion 
 to the development of a theory. Some of his theories, as to 
 motive, were rather fantastic ; but once he had started a 
 theory, he was not satisfied until he had explored it 
 by every avenue. In some of the so-called " unsolved 
 mysteries " of crime, he formed very shrewd ideas as to the 
 identity of the criminal, although the police may not have 
 felt justified in acting on the evidence that was available. 
 Please note that I say evidence, for under our system there 
 may be, and often are, many things known to the police 
 which could not be proved in a Court of justice, and this is 
 where the great difference comes in between our system and 
 the French. In France and other foreign countries the police 
 almost always arrest on suspicion and trust to the cross- 
 examination or interrogation of the accused by the magistrate 
 to convert that suspicion into a practical certainty. This is one 
 reason why Irving found the study of French criminal trials 
 so much more interesting and so much more dramatic than the 
 British. The two systems start from a different point of view, 
 and the methods adopted to carry out the process are wide as 
 the poles asunder. In France every accused person is pre- 
 sumed to be guilty, and every kind of trick is resorted to in 
 the hope of securing a confession or of proving the presumption, 
 whereas in England every accused person is presumed to be 
 innocent until the verdict of the jury of " Guilty." So jealous 
 are our Courts of this principle that a statement by an accused 
 person in custody is not admissible in evidence unless it is 
 proved that the accused has been properly cautioned by the 
 person to whom this statement is made. It was this well- 
 xiv
 
 An Appreciation. 
 
 known principle of our criminal administration that aroused 
 Irving's enthusiasm, and he was never slow to notice and 
 condemn any attempt to weaken it or whittle it down. 
 
 My space will ^iot allow me to attempt to refer to, much 
 less to analyse, the fascinating records of crime that he dealt 
 with so fully and so ably in " Studies of French Criminals," 
 published in 1901, and the " Book of Remarkable Criminals," 
 published so recently as in 1918. His " Life of Judge Jeffreys " 
 is a monument of industry and research and I doubt if I ever 
 read a more unanimous consensus of praise than the reviews of 
 this book, which appeared in practically every journal of import- 
 ance. In addition to the present volume, he has edited with 
 great skill and care two others (i.) The Trial of Franz Miiller, 
 the North London murder of 1864, which he dedicates to that 
 ever-young man of ninety-seven, Lord Halsbury, who, as Mr. 
 Hardinge Giffard, appeared in the case as one of the juniors 
 for the prosecution ; (ii.) The Trial of Mrs. Maybrick, which is 
 dedicated to Lord Sterndale, Master of the Rolls, who, as 
 Mr. Pickford, was junior to the late Lord Russell of Killowen 
 for the defence of that most unfortunate woman. Irving was 
 fortunate in his selection for dedication, as I doubt if there 
 are two more popular personalities to be found in the estimation 
 of the profession to which they belong. 
 
 One trait in Irving's character must not be overlooked 
 sometimes he was so impressed with the methods and conduct 
 of different criminals that he came almost to respect their 
 ability, and whilst he had and expressed the greatest contempt 
 for some of the criminals whose records he unearthed, he 
 undoubtedly admired the misplaced and misused talents of men 
 like Laoenaire and Peace. In recent times he expressed 
 sympathy with the famous Dr. Crippen, and though, from 
 circumstances over which I had no control, I was personally 
 unable to conduct his defence, I too always felt some 
 inexplicable sympathy for him. Of one thing both Irving and I 
 felt convinced, that if Crippen had cared to throw over the 
 companion who was eventually arrested with him, he might 
 have made good his escape.
 
 The Late H. B. Irving. 
 
 In the preparation of this volume dealing with the trial 
 of the Wainwrights, Irving had taken the keenest interest 
 and often had we talked over the points together. I remember 
 the trial well, though I was only a schoolboy at Rugby at the 
 time, and Irving was much interested in hearing my personal 
 reminiscences of this case, which was tried at the Old Bailey 
 in 1875, eight years before I wae called to the bar. Five of the 
 counsel engaged in the case I knew well, and three of them, 
 Sir Harry Poland, Sir Douglas Straight, and Mr. Charles Gill, 
 I hope I may claim as intimate personal friends. 
 
 By a somewhat curious coincidence, I was brought into 
 close touch with two other criminal cases which were very 
 notorious before I came to the bar. As a small boy, 
 I found my way into the Police Court at Brighton, 
 where I saw Christiana Edmunds in the dock, charged with 
 the murder of a little boy by poison at Brighton, a crime for 
 which she was afterwards convicted and sentenced to death at 
 the Old Bailey; but, being found insane, she was sent to 
 Broadmoor, where she died only a few years ago. There were 
 many very interesting incidents in connection with this case, 
 which Irving and I often discussed, not the least amusing of 
 which was the one which occurred at the trial between verdict 
 and sentence. The prisoner had pleaded, in bar of sentence 
 of death, that she was enceinte, and a jury of matrons was 
 empanelled. This jury desired the assistance of a medical man 
 who happened to be in Court, and he required a stethescope. 
 A message was sent into Court, and the presiding judge asked 
 one of the police to fetch one from one of the shops on Ludgate 
 Hill; after a time the officer returned, bringing a naval 
 telescope, and apologised by saying it was the smallest he 
 could get. 
 
 The other case of which I nave a personal recollection and 
 in which Irving took a keen interest, was the Lefroy case. On 
 Monday, 27th June, 1881, I was at Brighton Station, about 
 to proceed to London, when I noticed a considerable commotion. 
 Going to inquire the cause, I saw a man, looking very ill, who 
 was being taken to the Sussex County Hospital, and was told 
 
 xvi
 
 An Appreciation. 
 
 that he had been injured during his journey in the train which 
 had just arrived from London. This man was Lefroy, who 
 had in fact murdered Mr. Gold in that train and who must 
 have had at that time, partly hidden in his shoe, the watch 
 and chain of the murdered man, the presence of which was 
 afterwards detected and led to his arrest. I proceeded to 
 London, and the dead body of Mr. Gold must have been lying 
 in the tunnel through which we passed. I talked over this 
 case with Irving, who, as usual, had all the details at his 
 finger-ends, and he wa.s most particularly interested in my 
 telling him of a long conversation I had had with Henry 
 Labouchere on the last day of the trial, when he criticised the 
 tactics adopted by Montagu Williams who led for the defence. 
 
 No notice of Harry Irving in this connection would be in 
 any sense complete which did not contain some reference to 
 the club in which he took so much interest and helped to found. 
 The " Crimes Club," as it was nicknamed, or, more properly, 
 " Our Society," was intended to be an association originally of 
 twelve, and later of forty, members interested in criminology, 
 who were to meet periodically at dinner and after dinner 
 debate cases and matters connected with that subject. It 
 has been very successful, and the meetings have been all the 
 more interesting because members and their guests are pledged 
 to absolute secrecy, thus giving free play to unfettered dis- 
 cussion. Nowhere will Harry Irving be more missed than at 
 the meetings of this club. I little thought when, only a 
 short while ago, I was considering with him the details of the 
 Wainwright case, that before the volume was published he 
 would have " gone west." If it had not been his fortune to 
 be the son of a great actor and a great actor himself, he 
 might have earned fame as a great advocate, but his was the 
 better role. There was one subject on which he and I were 
 in complete accord, and that was the improvement of the status 
 of the police and detective force of this country. We both 
 advocated the centralisation of the detective organisation in 
 London, with branches in direct communication all over the 
 country. If men of education and ability could be attracted 
 
 xvii
 
 The Late H. B. Irving. 
 
 by remunerative salaries to this work, then there would have 
 been, and would be, more chance of dealing successfully with 
 the clever fraternity who live by their wits, and I know of no 
 class of man who could do better work of this kind than men 
 who possess those abilities which were so noticeable in Harry 
 Irving. 
 
 Many affectionate notices of him have appeared, and 
 all the kind things that have been said of him he richly 
 deserved. Honest, upright, courageous, generous to a fault, 
 he was the soul of chivalry and old-world courtesy. To know 
 him was to love him, and once you gained his friendship you 
 were sure of a champion at all times and on all occasions. A 
 sure way to draw him was to attack some one who was absent. 
 They who write his life will have an easy task where they 
 want to praise him, but it is with a keen sense of my own 
 insufficiency that I pen these few lines to his memory as a 
 criminologist. 
 
 xviii
 
 THE WAINWRIGHTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 AT the beginning of the year 1874 there was probably no more 
 popular or respected individual among the principal inhabitants 
 of that long and broad thoroughfare, the* Whitechapel Road, 
 than Mr. Henry Wainwright, brushmaker, carrying on his busi- 
 ness in partnership with his brother William at Nos. 84 and 215 
 Whitechapel Road. Henry Wainwright's father, a respectable 
 tradesman, churchwarden of his parish, had died some ten years 
 before, leaving a fortune of 11,000 to be divided between his 
 four sons and a daughter. Henry Wainwright, described as 
 "gentleman," had married, in 1862, the daughter of a 
 " merchant," by whom he had had four children. At the time 
 this narrative opens he was living with his wife and family in 
 Tredegar Square. 
 
 Genial, hospitable, always ready to " stand treat," rather 
 showy and assertive in his bonhomie, Wainwright had all those 
 gifts that make for popularity. Nor was he without intellectual 
 interests, unusual in a man of his position. As early as 1860, 
 when he was twenty-two years of age, Wainwright was a promi- 
 nent member of the Christ Church Institute, St. George' s-in -the 
 East, and a particular supporter of its musical and elocutionary 
 classes. About the same time we find him giving an entertain- 
 ment in an East-End school, described as "An Evening with 
 Thomas Moore," and taking an active part in private theatricals. 
 He appeared, among other parts, in that of Tom Cranky in 
 " The Birthplace of Podgers," made famous by J. L. Toole, 
 and gave occasional readings in Dickens, Barham, and Tom 
 Hood. In 1867 Wainwright delivered a lecture at the Leeds 
 Mechanics' Institution on " The Wit and Eccentricity of Sydney 
 Smith." He had at one time figured as a temperance lecturer, 
 but in later life would seem to have departed from those 
 principles. 
 
 xix
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 In appearance Henry Wainwright is described as moderately 
 tall, thick, and broad-shouldered in build. There was a Jewish 
 cast in his countenance, accentuated by a large nose and his dark 
 brown hair and beard, waved and curly. His beard and 
 moustache concealed a heavy and sensual mouth. His blue eyes 
 were full and prominent, but with the curious dusky, sleepy 
 look associated with those of Orientals. The whole effect of the 
 face was by no means displeasing, and to women Mr. Henry 
 Wainwright was anything but unattractive. 
 
 Among no class of people in the Whitechapel Road at that 
 time was Wainwright more popular than with, the actors at the 
 Pavilion Theatre. The theatre was situated next door to Wain- 
 wright' s shop at No. 84. Wainwright was on good terms with 
 the management, supplied them with brushes and mats, evinced 
 great interest in all things connected with the drama, and 
 enjoyed practically the free run of the theatre. He was always 
 lavish in entertaining, and to actors getting very humble salaries 
 it was a much-desired privilege to be asked out to sup with Mr. 
 Wainwright. Vanity played no small part in Wainwright' s 
 character. After one of these suppers a recitation by the host 
 was accepted as a recognised feature of the entertainment. 
 Curiously enough, in the light of subsequent events, his favourite 
 piece on these occasions was Hood's " Dream of Eugene Aram." 
 He is said by one of those who heard him to have recited the 
 poem with force and vigour, but without that peculiar sense of 
 horror which makes its recitation so vivid in the hands of a 
 great actor. 
 
 In public affairs Wainwright took an occasional part. He 
 was an ardent supporter of the Conservative party. In one 
 instance his interest in the burning questions of the day made 
 him figure prominently in a dramatic scene. During 1872 and 
 1873 Arthur Orton, the Tichborne claimant, was stumping the 
 country holding meetings to raise funds for his defence in his 
 approaching trial for forgery. A meeting of his East-End 
 supporters, of whom Wainwright declared himself one, was held 
 on the stage of the Pavilion Theatre. At the conclusion of the 
 claimant's speech the heavy drop curtain was lowered unex- 
 pectedly, and, had it fallen on the head of Orton, who was 
 immediately beneath it and unconscious of its descent, might
 
 Henry Wainwright.
 
 Introduction, 
 
 have terminated that impostor's career and saved his country a 
 considerable expenditure of public money. But Wainwright 
 sprang forward at the critical moment, and, before the catas- 
 trophe could happen, pulled back the claimant out of all danger. 
 Loud applause greeted this dramatic incident, and Orton and 
 Wain\vright appeared hand in hand before the curtain to receive 
 the congratulations of the audience a strange association of 
 the criminal that was with the criminal yet to be.* 
 
 A pleasant account of the home life of Wainwright at this 
 time, and an instance of his natural friendliness and geniality 
 are given by J. B. Howe, an East-End tragedian of the day, in 
 his book, " A Cosmopolitan Actor " 
 
 A few days after my arrival, I left my house in Tredegar 
 Terrace, Bow, to proceed westward, and as I crossed Tredegar 
 Square I saw a hansom cab drawing up to the centre house of 
 the row. A gentleman of medium height jumped out, and 
 approaching me exclaimed : " Bless ' me, I can't be mistaken. 
 It's Mr. Howe." " You have the advantage of me," I replied, 
 and yet your face is familiar ! " " Oh, yes, I've seen you often 
 at the East London; come into the house if you have a moment 
 to spare, I can give you a good glass of sherry." 
 
 After having addressed the cabman and rung the bell, the 
 door was opened by a smart slavey, and he led the way to an 
 elegantly furnished parlour. Wine was brought on the table, 
 with biscuits, and while we were chatting about my travels, the 
 door was gently opened and a pretty, dark lady entered with two 
 lovely children. The gentleman merely said: "My wife, Mr. 
 Howe." 
 
 The lady took a seat and seemed greatly pleased with the 
 interest her husband evinced in the hurried explanation I gave 
 of my voyage home, and, amongst other remarks, I elicited from 
 him the fact that he was in some sense an actor himself. ' ' That 
 is," said he, " I play for charitable purposes sometimes, and also 
 give lectures at the Bow and Bromley Institute and other places." 
 
 All this time I did not like to put the somewhat rude ques- 
 tion, "What might be your name?" thinking, of course, that 
 he would divulge it in the course of the glib conversation ; but, 
 however, he did not, and after a lapse of perhaps thirty -five 
 minutes, he left the room to make some explanations to his wife, 
 and, re-entering, exclaimed 
 
 "Were you going towards the city?" 
 
 "I was going to the West End when I encountered you." 
 
 * This scene is described by the late Arthur Williams, the 
 comedian, who was present at it, in his " Reminiscences," which 
 appeared in the Stage newspaper in 1914. 
 
 TXl
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 " Oh, then, you can come in my cab as far as Whitechapel, 
 if you have no objection." 
 
 " None in the least," I rejoined. 
 
 "All right, jump in; good-bye, my dears." Then kissing 
 the children and his wife he joined me, and we turned into the 
 Bow Road towards Mile End. As we drove along, I thought I 
 had never in my life encountered a nicer man. A fine head, firmly 
 balanced on square shoulders; raven locks, and large penetrating 
 blue eyes, short whiskers just tinged with a red sandy hue, and 
 a power of conversation really wonderful. He asked me where 
 I intended to open in London. I told him I really did not know, 
 as I had not as yet shown myself. By this time we were at Mile 
 End. "Well," he exclaimed, "as I am so near my shop, I'll 
 just jump out and leave you." 
 
 He alighted, shook hands with a friend, and walked away 
 arm in arm towards the London Hospital. 
 
 "Who was that gentleman?" I asked of the cabman, "I 
 did not like to ask him his name, he seemed to know me well 
 enough." "You must have seen him often," said the cabman, 
 "it's Mr. Henry Wainwright, the brushmaker." 
 
 But underneath this apparent domestic happiness, the pros- 
 perity and respectability of Mr. Henry Wainwright, the 
 brushmaker, there lurked a story of intrigue, hitherto a secret 
 from the world, which was fated to ruin the good name of 
 Wainwright and destroy the esteem in which he was held by his 
 fellow-men, an esteem which to a man of his temperament 
 was a constant source of self -congratulation. Unknown to all, 
 the respectable and respected Mr. Henry Wainwright was 
 clandestinely a coureur des femmes, and, if his own account is 
 to be believed, an eminently successful one. In the course of 
 his surreptitious adventures he was led into forming a connection 
 of a more lasting character than attaches usually to incidents 
 of this kind, the consequences of which were to threaten the 
 exposure to that double life which Mr. Wainwright had hitherto 
 concealed so cleverly from his family and friends. 
 
 In the course of the year 1871 Wainwright had met at Brox- 
 bourne Gardens, a favourite pleasure resort of Londoners at that 
 time on the banks of the river Lea, a girl about twenty years 
 of age, named Harriet Lane, daughter of John Lane, a gas 
 manager employed in the Royal Gunpowder Mills at Waltham 
 Abbey, living at Waltham Cross. Harriet Lane herself was 
 apprenticed to a milliner and dressmaker at Waltham Abbey.
 
 Introduction, 
 
 She is described as a lively little woman with pleasing manners 
 and a love of finery. If certain letters found in her possession, 
 written in the years 1871 and 1872, are to be accepted as having 
 come from Henry Wainwright, their intimacy would appear to 
 have commenced under assumed names, Wainwright passing as 
 "George Williams," and Harriet Lane as " Miss L. Varco." 
 In July, 1871, Williams writes 
 
 " Darling creature, off to Paris for God's sake don't 
 write, etc. Drop me a line in about a fortnight (if 
 you don't in that time thoroughly forget me) to P.O., 
 Whitechapel Road. Oceans of love." 
 
 On August 25th he makes an appointment to meet Mies Varco 
 in the first-class waiting room at Bishopsgate Station. 
 
 In September he writes to her from Germany, this time sign- 
 ing himself " George Varco " 
 
 " It is very uncertain how long I shall stay away from 
 
 England, perhaps for ever, God knows, so think no 
 
 more of me, and quite forget you ever saw me. I have 
 
 told P.O. to send me only letters received in name of 
 
 " Yrs most affectionately, 
 
 " GBO. VAROO." 
 A letter from Strasburg follows this 
 
 " My little Beauty, not home till December, drop me a 
 line to P.O. by Dec. 1st, if you don't forget me, as 
 in all probability you will." 
 
 If these letters were written by Henry Wainwright to Harriet 
 Lane and there seems no reason to doubt it the intimacy had 
 ripened quickly after the return of "George Varco" from 
 Germany. In the February of 1872 there appeared in the 
 Waltham Abbey and Cheshunt Weekly Telegraph an advertise- 
 ment, sent to the newspaper in a woman's handwriting, to the 
 effect that on the 22nd instant, at St. Mary's, Percy King, Esq., 
 of Chelsea, had been married to Harriet, ninth daughter of John 
 Lane, of Waltham Cross, Herts. Percy King was Henry Wain- 
 wright, and henceforth Harriet Lane was to be known as Mra. 
 King. In July Mr. and Mrs. King were living together in S*>. 
 Peter's Street, Mile End, and there on August 22nd a daughter 
 
 xxiii
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 was born to them. After moving to Alfred Place, Bedford 
 Square, and Cecil Street, Strand, Mrs. King, in 1873, returned 
 to St. Peter's Street, -where, in December of that year, a second 
 daughter was born. There Mrs. King remained until the May 
 of 1874, when she went to lodge at the house of a Mrs. Foster, 
 3 Sidney Square, Mile End Road. 
 
 Thus, unknown to his wife and to the world at large, Henry 
 Wain wright had for three years been leading this double life. 
 His relationship with Harriet Lane had been kept a profound 
 secret, known only to the one or two persons who had been 
 brought into close contact with Mrs. King. Among these was a 
 Miss Wilmore, for whom Harriet Lane had worked at one time 
 as a dressmaker. Miss Wilmore would seem to have had a 
 very real affection for Harriet Lane, and, when she learnt of 
 her connection with Mr. King, had, with Wainwright's approval, 
 taken care of the elder of the little girls. But beyond Miss 
 Wilmore few, if any, knew of the identity of Mr. Percy King 
 with Henry Wainwright, and, had things prospered with Wain- 
 wright as in the past, he would have had no difficulty in fulfilling 
 his responsibilities towards his clandestine family, and so render- 
 ing unlikely that the exposure of his misconduct which above all 
 things he sought to avoid. 
 
 Unfortunately for him, to a great extent, no doubt, through 
 his own neglect and extravagance, his business affairs had been 
 going steadily from bad to worse, until in 1874 they had reached 
 a crisis. His brother William, to whom he owed a considerable 
 sum of money, dissolved their partnership. An attempt of 
 Wainwright to carry on the business with a new partner ended 
 disastrously. His debts, irrespective of that to his brother, 
 amounted to over 3000. In May his creditors met and agreed 
 to accept a composition of 12s. in the pound, of which, however, 
 Wainwright never paid more than 9s. In July he was so hard 
 put to it for cash that he is found unsuccessfully trying to pawn 
 a revolver. 
 
 These financial embarrassments had reacted most unhappily 
 on the relations between Wainwright and Mrs. King. At the 
 beginning of their intimacy her lover had allowed her the 
 generous sum of 5 a week ; in fact, as Harriet Lane said her- 
 self, Mr. Wainwright " kept her like a lady." But as his 
 xxiv
 
 Introduction, 
 
 financial position grew more insecure, Wainwright could not 
 continue to keep Mrs. King on this scale. With ever-increasing 
 liabilities, he found the tie of his mistress and her family more 
 and more irksome. His payments to her diminished steadily, 
 and it was at last with considerable difficulty that Mrs. King 
 could get any money out of him at all. She was herself obliged 
 to pawn a number of her things. Under these trials Mrs. King 
 developed a certain hastiness of temper and a tendency to drink 
 more than was good for her. She took to going to Wainwright's 
 shop at 84 Whitechapel Road and making unpleasant scenes. 
 On one occasion Wainwright would appear to have used physical 
 violence towards her. Under the influence of drink, she had 
 created a disturbance outside her lodgings, and, in the summer 
 of 1874, was under notice to quit from her landlady. But 
 through all her troubles Harriet Lane remained constant to 
 Wainwright. Nothing on earth, she said, should ever part her 
 from Henry. Her constancy was to cost her dear. 
 
 To Wainwright the situation had become intolerable. Not 
 only had Harriet Lane become dangerous to his reputation and 
 peace of mind, but he had no doubt tired of her. To this clan- 
 destine Don Juan of the Whitechapel Road the jealousy and 
 importunity of Harriet Lane promised to be serious obstacles 
 to the enjoyment of other amorous adventures. Owing to her 
 inconvenient devotion to him, he could see no prospect of palm- 
 ing her off on another man. On September 10th, 1874, Wain- 
 wright ordered half a hundredweight of chloride of lime, which 
 was packed in a box and sent to No. 84 Whitechapel Road. On 
 the following day, Friday, the llth, Mrs. King left her lodgings 
 at four o'clock in the afternoon, taking with her a nightdress 
 done up in a small parcel. She told Miss Wilmore that she 
 was going to meet Henry Wainwright at his place in the White- 
 chapel Road. From that hour Mrs. King was never seen again 
 alive, and, in the course of the same day, the chloride of lime 
 at No. 84 had disappeared. 
 
 Besides the shop at No. 84, Wainwright had a warehouse, No. 
 215, on the opposite side of the Whiteohapel Road. Three men 
 working next door to this warehouse swore that, on an evening 
 about this time in September, between half-past five and six 
 o'clock they had heard three pistol shots fired in rapid suocea-
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 sion, which sounded as if they came from Wainwright' B premises. 
 This warehouse was a long, narrow building some 40 yards in 
 depth. A good deal of the flooring was stone, but at the extreme 
 end was a raised portion, called the paint room, the floor of 
 which was of wood. Since Friday, September llth, 1874, 
 Harriet Lane, Mrs. Percy King, had been lying in chloride of 
 lime, shot through the head and her throat cut, under the floor 
 of the paint room at 215 Whitechapel Road. 
 
 To explain the mysterious disappearance of Harriet Lane, 
 Wainwright told Miss Wilmore and such of her relations ae 
 inquired about her that she had gone off with a man named Teddy 
 Frieake, with whom she was living on the Continent, and Miss 
 Wilmore received a letter purporting to oome from Mr. Frieake, 
 addressed from the Charing Cross Hotel, in which the writer said 
 that Mrs. King had promised to have nothing more to do with 
 Mr. King or her family and friends. On these conditions Mr. 
 Frieake was going to marry her, and they were about to start 
 for Dover. From Dover Henry Wainwright and Miss Wilmore 
 received telegrams from Frieake saying that he and Harriet 
 were off to the Continent for a spree. According to Henry 
 Wainwright, Edward Frieake was a friend of his, and on more 
 than one occasion during 1873 and the early part of 1874 Wain- 
 wright and a person calling himself Edward Frieake had visited 
 Harriet Lane at her lodgings. It was true that Henry Wain- 
 wright had a friend called Edward Frieake, an auctioneer, but 
 this was not the Edward Frieake who had visited Harriet Lane 
 and taken her away to marry her on the Continent. There 
 was evidence to suggest that this Edward Frieake had been 
 impersonated on his visits to Harriet Lane by Henry Wain- 
 wright' s brother Thomas, and the letter purporting to come 
 from Frieake, written from the Charing Cross Hotel, was un- 
 doubtedly in the handwriting of Thomas Wainwright. When 
 in the course of their inquiries the friends of Harriet Lane 
 lighted on the real Edward Frieake, the auctioneer and friend of 
 Henry Wainwright, and he had satisfied them that he knew 
 nothing of, and had never had any dealings with, Harriet Lane, 
 Wainwright explained the awkward fact by saying that it was 
 not this Edward Frieake who had gone off with Harriet, but 
 another man of the same rather uncommon name, a young
 
 Introduction, 
 
 fellow of three- or four-and-twenty, whom he had met at some 
 billiard rooms in Fenchurch Street. In spite of the apparently 
 singular coincidence of Henry Wainwright having two friends 
 of the uncommon name of Frieake combined with the Christian 
 name of Edward, and the unsatisfactory character of his explana- 
 tion of Harriet's disappearance, it is to the credit of his plausi- 
 bility and self-assurance that he succeeded in convincing the 
 friends of Harriet Lane of the truth of his story. After the 
 beginning of the year 1875, her friends would appear to have 
 accepted the situation, and no further inquiries were made as to 
 her fate. The two children of Mr. and Mrs. King were left in 
 the care of the faithful Miss Wilmore, who received from Wain- 
 wright the money necessary for their maintenance. 
 
 Wainwright was now on the way to experience those feelings 
 of terror and remorse which he had been so fond of portraying 
 in his recitation of " The Dream of Eugene Aram." But such 
 are not the emotions usually felt by murderers. It is difficult 
 to believe that any one as imaginative as Hood's Aram would 
 ever have committed a murder ; he is certainly utterly unlike 
 the Aram of real life, who would seem to have been very little 
 troubled at any time by feelings of acute horror or remorse. 
 Apprehension would better describe, as a rule, the feelings of 
 the murderer who has an awkward secret buried in, as he hopes, 
 some unsuspected and inaccessible place. At the same time, 
 the change in the Henry Wainwright of ante-murder and post- 
 murder days was unmistakable, and impressed itself on many 
 of those who had known him during both periods. 
 
 My friend, the late Frank Tyars, for many years a member 
 of my father's company, was engaged as an actor at the Pavilion 
 Theatre at different times during 1874 and 1875. He described 
 Wainwright, as he first knew him, as a man of a very self- 
 assured and confident bearing, who walked down the Whitechapel 
 Road as if it belonged to him, hail-fellow-well-met in his manner, 
 cordial and friendly towards all those associated with the theatre. 
 Before the summer of 1874 Tyars left the Pavilion, but returned 
 there later to fulfil another engagement. It was then that he 
 noticed an extraordinary change in the demeanour of Wain- 
 wright. He first saw him comirrg down the street. Instead of 
 the breezy, self-confident gentleman he had known, he saw a
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 man walking slowly along in a furtive, hang-dog way, and, to 
 his astonishment, recognised him as Henry Wainwright. 
 
 J. B. Howe had also observed the change in the man. He 
 had become nervous, impatient, and irritable. He had taken 
 to visiting public-houses, where he would sit drinking more 
 than was good for him, and nervously cracking and eating 
 walnuts, of which he was very fond. 
 
 Fortunately for Wainwright, men put down this marked change 
 in his manner and disposition to the pressing nature of his 
 financial difficulties, which were constantly increasing. On 
 November 27th, 1874, the shop at No. 84 Whitechapel Road 
 was burnt down, its contents completely gutted by the fire. 
 Wainwright claimed 3000 insurance money from the Sun Fire 
 Office, but the company disputed his claim. He brought an 
 action against them, which had not yet come on for trial at the 
 time of his arrest. Wainwright was in the habit of speaking 
 with great excitement and bitterness of the conduct of the com- 
 pany in resisting his claim, so much so that J. B. Howe found 
 himself very nearly involved in a row in the bar of the " Royal 
 Oak " owing to some expression he had used in trying to calm 
 Wainwright' s too outspoken indignation against the Fire Office. 
 
 In September, 1874, Wainwright had been obliged to raise 
 money by a mortgage on the warehouse at 215 Whitechapel 
 Road. In June, 1875, Wainwright had been declared a bank- 
 rupt. In the July of that year the mortgagee of No. 215 fore- 
 closed and took possession of the premises, including that 
 portion known as the paint room, under which were lying the 
 remains of Harriet Lane. Wainwright about this time had 
 given up his business as a brushmaker, and was employed as 
 manager by a Mr. Martin, a well-to-do corn merchant in the 
 New Road, Whitechapel. Mr. Martin had taken over Wain- 
 wright' s brush business in a friendly way, and advanced him 
 300. He paid Wainwright a salary of 3 a week, and intended 
 when the money he had advanced had been paid off to restore 
 to him his business. Wainwright was in the habit of calling 
 for his letters at No. 215, and would seem to have had access 
 to the premises. Was it safe to leave the proof of his guilt 
 under the floor of the paint room. Many persons had noticed 
 at different times an unpleasant smell in the warehouse, and an
 
 Introduction. 
 
 inquisitive dog that nosed about too frequently in the neighbour- 
 hood of the paint room was said to have disappeared suddenly. 
 In November, 1874, Thomas Wainwright, the brother who 
 had been mixed up so mysteriously in the history of the legendary 
 Edward Frieake, had started an ironmongery business at a place 
 called the Hen and Chickens, in the High Street, Borough. The 
 business had failed, and, in June, 1875, Thomas' principal 
 creditor put in an execution. A sale was held on June 28th. 
 After the sale the premises were locked up, the key being in 
 the possession of Thomas Wainwright. The foundations of the 
 building known as the Hen and Chickens were deep and solid, 
 and down in its cellars were some very remote and inaccessible 
 corners, convenient hiding-places for inconvenient relics. 
 
 TJie anniversary of the disappearance of Harriet Lane was 
 approaching. It was an anniversary on which Henry Wain- 
 wright might with some reason congratulate himself as a hitherto 
 successful murderer. His victim had been dead a year, and no 
 one was troubling any further about what had become of her. 
 If he could only transfer successfully her remains from the 
 Whitechapel Road, where it was no longer safe to leave them, 
 to the convenient hiding-place in the Borough, he had every 
 reason to hope that they might remain undiscovered for an 
 indefinite period. He had made only one mistake. Chloride of 
 lime preserves rather than destroys human remains. The 
 removal would be therefore a difficult and extremely unpleasant 
 task. But with the help of his brother Thomas it had to be 
 done, and on September 10th, 1875, the two brothers purchased 
 between them a quantity of American cloth, some rope, a chopper, 
 and a spade. 
 
 Next morning, Saturday, September llth, the very day on 
 which Harriet Lane the year before had left her lodgings in 
 Sidney Square to go to meet Henry Wainwright, a friend of 
 Thomas Wainwright remarked that he was not looking well. 
 The work that had been done the night before, the making up 
 of the two parcels in American cloth that were waiting at No. 
 215 Whitechapel Road to be taken to the Borough, cannot have 
 been a pleasant occupation. But so far everything had been 
 carried out successfully. It was left to Henry Wainwright to 
 make the final journey.
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 About four o'clock that afternoon Wainwright asked a youth 
 of the name of Stokes, who had at one time been in his employ- 
 ment, and was now a fellow-manager with him at Mr. Martin's, 
 in the New Road, if he would help him to carry a parcel. Stokes 
 assented, and together he and Wainwright went to 215 White- 
 chapel Road. There Wainwright produced two large and heavy 
 parcels done up in American cloth. He carrying one and Stokes 
 the other, they walked as far as Whitechapel church, where 
 Wainwright told Stokes to mind the parcels while he went to a 
 cab-rank a little way off to fetch a four-wheeler. Stokes was by 
 this time suspicious of the two parcels. They smelt offensively, 
 and he had an idea that Wainwright might be trying to remove 
 surreptitiously a quantity of human hair, used by brushmakers, 
 which had been already sold to Mr. Martin as part of the stock 
 of the business. Later Stokes declared that a supernatural voice 
 had called to him distinctly three times, saying, " Open that 
 parcel." Whatever his reason, Stokes did open the parcel, 
 and saw, to his horror, a human hand. By this time Wain- 
 wright had returned with the cab. Stokes said nothing. Wain- 
 wright put the parcels in the cab and drove off. The voice then 
 spoke again to Stokes, saying with some sense, "Follow that 
 cab! " This he did, as hard as he could go. Once the cab 
 stopped, and Stokes concealed himself in a doorway. A lady 
 of Wainwright' s acquaintance had just come out of a public- 
 house at the corner of Greenfield Street. She was Miss Alice 
 Day, a ballet dancer at the Pavilion Theatre. She had known 
 Wainwright about five years, but the acquaintanceship was, she 
 said, " an ordinary one," free of any improper intimacy. Wain- 
 wright got out of the cab to meet her, and asked her if she 
 would like a drive with him over London Bridge. He was now 
 smoking a large cigar. She accepted his invitation on condition 
 that he promised to get her back in time for her work in the 
 theatre. They started off in the cab, with the two parcels on 
 the front seat. Wainwright gave her a paper to read, and said, 
 " Don't speak to me, I'm thinking." The cab passed over 
 London Bridge, Stokes still in pursuit, and endeavouring vainly 
 to interest one or two sceptical policemen in his breathless chase. 
 At last the cab reached the Hen and Chickens, in the High 
 Street, Borough. Wainwright got out and went into the build-
 
 Introduction. 
 
 ing with one of the parcels. In the meantime Stokes had suc- 
 ceeded in attracting the attention of a policeman, who came up 
 to the cab, and was waiting there when Wainwright returned. 
 Wainwright had already taken the other parcel out of the cab 
 when the constable interposed, and the following dialogue took 
 place : 
 
 P.C. Do you live here? 
 
 W. No. 
 
 P.C. Have you got possession of this place? 
 
 W. I have, and you haven't. 
 
 p. C. Well, go inside. 
 
 W. No, perhaps you hf.J better go in. 
 
 P.C. I want to see what's in that parcel you have just 
 taken in. 
 
 W. Ask no questions and there's 50 for each of you. 
 By this time another constable had come up. The officers 
 said that they did not want Wainwright' s money, and took him 
 along with them into the Hen and Chickens. There they opened 
 one of the parcels and found the remains of a human body. 
 Wainwright said desperately, " I'll give you 100, I'll give 
 you 200, and produce the money in twenty minutes if you'll 
 let me go." But it was all of no avail. The game was up. 
 Wainwright and Miss Alice Day were taken to the Stone's End 
 Police Station, and the remains to the St. Saviour's mortuary. 
 Wainwright had failed as a criminal. On this fatal day, 
 September llth, he had made two simple blunders which had 
 ruined a plan that seemed on the verge of complete success. He 
 should not have waited to light his large cigar till he got into 
 the cab; he should have lit it before he began to handle the 
 offensive parcels with Stokes; he might even have offered one 
 to his companion. He should not have gone to fetch the cab 
 and left Stokes with the parcels; he should have looked after 
 the parcels while he sent Stokes to fetch the cab. These were 
 strange oversights in one who had come so near to hiding his 
 guilt perhaps for ever. The anniversary had been as surely 
 fatal to Henry Wainwright as a year before to Harriet Lane. 
 
 The fuller details of the evidence collected against Henry Wain- 
 wright and his brother Thomas will be found in the report of the 
 trial along with the medical evidence, by means of which the 
 
 xxxi
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 remains found in Henry Wainwright's possession were identified 
 as those of Harriet Lane. It <5nly remains to trace the course 
 of events from the arrest of the chief culprit to his execution. 
 
 On 'September 13th. Henry Wainwright, aged thirty-six, 
 described as " manager of a school " at Chingford, Essex, and 
 Alice Day, aged twenty, dressmaker, were charged at South- 
 wark Police Court " with having in their possession the muti- 
 lated body of a woman at present unknown, and supposed to 
 have been murdered." At the time of his arrest Wainwright's 
 wife and family had left Tredegar Square, and were living at 
 School House Lane, Chingford. The evidence of Stokes and the 
 constables was taken. Wainwright asked no questions. Alice 
 Day clutched hold of him and said, " For God's sake tell them 
 what I know of the matter I know nothing." Wainwright 
 answered, " I met her Saturday. She knows nothing." Both 
 prisoners were remanded. The inquest on the body opened 
 before the Southwark coroner on September 15th. 
 
 At the next hearing at the Police Court, on September 21st, 
 Wainwright was charged with the wilful murder of Harriet Lane. 
 Mr. (now Sir Harry) Poland appeared to prosecute for the 
 Treasury, and Mr. Besley for the defence. Early in the pro- 
 ceedings Alice Day was discharged. The case had by this time 
 aroused great public interest. Among those present in Court 
 as spectators was Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., afterwards the well-known 
 judge. One fact damaging to his client's case was elicited by 
 Mr. Besley in the course of an over-eager cross-examination. 
 The father of Harriet Lane had been called to speak to the 
 identity of the remains. He said that they were those of his 
 daughter, but could give no very specific reason for saying so. 
 The body was so far decomposed as to make any recognition 
 of the features out of the question. Mr. Besley, anxious to 
 emphasise the vagueness of Mr. Lane's evidence, pressed him 
 as to the impossibility of his having any more definite reasons 
 for his statement. Suddenly the witness, under the stress of 
 cross-examination, recollected that Harriet had been scalded on 
 the leg as a child, and that the scar of the burn had remained. 
 Mr. Poland was quick to avail himself of this unexpected piece 
 xxxii
 
 Introduction. 
 
 of information. He had the body re-examined, and below the 
 right knee a distinct scar, about the size of a two shilling piece, 
 was found. 
 
 At the resumed inquest on October 1st an important witness, 
 Miss Wilmore, the friend of Harriet Lane, was called for the first 
 time. She was asked as to the circumstances under which 
 Harriet Lane had left her lodgings in Sidney Square on the 
 afternoon of Friday, September llth, 1874. Miss Wilmore 
 said that Harriet told her not to mind if she did not see her on 
 the following Sunday, as she might go out with Percy, that is, 
 Wainwright, otherwise Mr. Percy King. When she left she 
 said she was going to 215 Whitechapel Road, and that she was 
 going to live there. " She had told me," said Miss Wilmore, 
 
 " she was going to have ' At this point Mr. Besley 
 
 objected, and the witness was not allowed to say any more. 
 At the trial the whole of the evidence of Miss Wilmore as to 
 these statements made to her by Harriet Lane before she left her 
 lodgings was excluded, following a decisipn of Chief-Justice 
 Bovill in the Pook case, tried at the Central Criminal Court in 
 1871. In this case a charge of murder against a man called 
 Pook, a statement made by the murdered woman as to where 
 she was going on the evening of her death was disallowed, and 
 in Wainwright' s case Chief -Justice Cockburn gave a similar 
 decision. The statements made to Miss Wilmore by Harriet 
 Lane were, said the judge, " no part of the act of leaving, only 
 an incidental remark. It was only a statement of intention, 
 which might or might not have been carried out."* 
 
 On October 1st Thomas Wainwright was arrested and charged 
 as an accessory after the fact. 
 
 The last two hearings of the case at the Police Court took 
 place on October 12th and 13th, when both prisoners were com- 
 mitted for trial to the Central Criminal Court. 
 
 On October 14th the coroner's jury returned a verdict to the 
 effect that the mutilated remains were those of Harriet Lane, 
 otherwise King, and that she was wilfully murdered by Henry 
 Wainwright. 
 
 Cox's " Criminal Law Cases," XIII., p. 171. 
 G xxxiii
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 In the Times report of the last two days' proceedings at the 
 Police Court, the name of Mr. W. S. Gilbert is given as being 
 instructed with Mr. Besley for the defence of the prisoner Henry 
 Wainwright. This Mr. W. S. Gilbert was no other than the 
 famous humorist and dramatist, afterwards Sir W. S. Gilbert, 
 the collaborator with Arthur Sullivan in the Savoy operas. 
 Though a barrister, Gilbert had at this time given up practice 
 and devoted himself to writing. To his annoyance, he found 
 himself summoned on a jury. Unfortunately for him, only 
 practising barristers are exempted from jury service. As he was 
 hard at work on a play, it was extremely inconvenient for him 
 to obey the summons. If, however, he could make a fugitive 
 reappearance as a practising barrister, he would be able to claim 
 exemption. In order to do this he persuaded a friend to give 
 him a nominal brief for two days in the Wainwright case, and 
 thus it is that his name appears as counsel for the defence in the 
 reports of these two days' proceedings at the Police Court. 
 
 Gilbert told the present writer a peculiar story with regard 
 to his connection with the case. Henry Wainwright, in his 
 later years, had developed a strong and remarkable likeness to 
 Tom Robertson, the dramatist, the author of "Caste" and 
 other well-known comedies of that day. Robertson died in 
 1871. Gilbert attended the funeral, and noticed among those 
 standing near the grave a man who bone a strange resemblance 
 to the deceased dramatist. Some short time after Gilbert got 
 into a carriage on the Underground Railway, and saw sitting 
 in the corner of the carriage this same man, whose likeness to 
 Robertson had struck him so forcibly at the grave side. The 
 resemblance was so startling that Gilbert forgot for the moment 
 that his friend was dead, and was almost on the point of speak- 
 ing to the stranger. When he attended at Southwark Police 
 Court and Henry Wainwright came into the dock, Gilbert recog- 
 nised at once in his occasional client the man who had twice 
 surprised him by his curious likeness to Tom Robertson. 
 
 At the October Sessions of the Central Criminal Court the 
 grand jury returned true bills against Henry and Thomas Wain- 
 wright, but, on the application of the defence, the trial was 
 postponed until the November sittings.
 
 Introduction. 
 
 It commenced at the Old Bailey on November 22nd. The 
 presiding judge was the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir 
 Alexander Cockburn. The career of Cockburn at the bar had 
 been brilliant, and his success in Parliament conspicuous. A 
 gifted and accomplished man, remarkable for his eloquence of 
 speech and quickness of apprehension, vanity played no small 
 part in his character. As a judge he delighted to try oases that 
 had attracted the public attention, and in his conduct of them 
 did nothing to minimise their importance or the prominence 
 of his own part in the proceedings. The result was that he 
 showed a strong tendency, very conspicuous in the Tichborne 
 trial, and in lesser degree in that of Wainwright, to prolong 
 unnecessarily the length of a case and exaggerate unduly its 
 importance. In the opening of his summing up in Wainwright' a 
 trial he speaks of ' ' the magnitude and importance of this great 
 trial." This is the language of exaggeration. The Wainwright 
 trial was sensational in character and remarkable in many of its 
 features, but it was not a great case, nor one of magnitude. 
 The facts against Henry Wainwright were on the whole fatally 
 clear, the proof of his guilt overwhelming. And yet the case 
 took nine days to try. The Attorney-General devoted a whole 
 day, from ten to three o'clock, to his closing speech, and the 
 Chief Justice another day, from ten to four, to his summing up. 
 These two efforts might well have been for all practical purposes 
 compressed into one day. But forty years ago the law ,was less 
 expeditious, and public time and money were of little account 
 in the eyes of judge and counsel, who were enjoying the long- 
 drawn-out pleasures of a cause cettbre. One of the outstanding 
 features of the Wainwright case was the very clever defence of 
 Thomas Wainwright by his counsel, Mr. Moody, and there were 
 those who felt that Cockburn, in his anxiety to shine himself, 
 showed a rather unworthy want of appreciation of Mr. Moody's 
 success. The Chief Justice's charge to the jury was no doubt 
 an impressive performance. One listener has described how 
 Henry Wainwright was visibly moved when Cockburn described 
 in graphic language the murder of Harriet Lane as he conceived 
 it to have taken place. 
 
 The Attorney- General, Sir John Holker, came down to the 
 Old Bailey to prosecute Wainwright. In these days the prose-
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 cution in such a case would have been left in all probability 
 to the counsel for the Treasury, but forty years ago it was 
 usual for one of the law officers to conduct the prosecution in 
 an important murder trial. " Sleepy Jack Holker," as he was 
 called, was an enormously successful advocate. He was at this 
 time reckoned to be making professionally about 22,000 a 
 year. He is described as " a tall, plain, lumbering Lancashire 
 man, who never seemed to labour a case nor to distinguish 
 himself by ingenuity or eloquence, but through whom the justice 
 of his cause appeared to shine as through a somewhat dull but 
 altogether honest medium." No man at the bar has ever com- 
 mended himself so thoroughly to the confidence and affections 
 of a British jury as did Holker by the plain and unvarnished 
 character of his advocacy. With the Attorney was Mr., now 
 Sir Harry, Poland, than whom, in his day, there was no fairer 
 and at the same time more deadly prosecutor of criminals. Had 
 the trial taken place at the present time, the conduct of the case 
 would no doubt have been left in his hands. 
 
 Mr. Besley, who defended Henry Wainwright, was a well- 
 known member of the criminal bar, but he was not an advocate 
 of remarkable ability, nor did he ever attain to any great place 
 in his profession. Two of his colleagues in the case were to 
 make their mark, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Douglas Straight, then a 
 rising member of the junior bar, and Mr. C. F. Gill, the well- 
 known K.C. of to-day. Mr. Moody, whose defence of Thomas 
 Wainwright was an outstanding feature of the trial, had been 
 for many years the Times reporter at the Central Criminal 
 Court, the Middlesex Sessions. He was a man of considerable 
 ability, but as an advocate lacked that " Court manner " which 
 is such an important element in success at the bar. 
 
 The trial concluded on the 1st of December. Henry Wain- 
 wright was found guilty of wilful murder and sentenced to death, 
 Thomas to seven years penal servitude as an accessory after the 
 fact. The Frieake episode, which the Chief Justice described 
 as mysterious and incapable of definite solution, was not con- 
 sidered to afford evidence strong enough to constitute Thomas 
 Wainwright an accessory before the fact, and so render him 
 liable to the extreme penalty of the law. 
 
 Henry Wainwright, when called upon before sentence, swore,
 
 Introduction. 
 
 standing on the brink of eternity and in the presence of God, 
 that he was not the murderer of the remains found in his posses- 
 sion, a statement which the Chief Justice stigmatised as a " rash 
 assertion." In the Times of December 21st, the day of Wain- 
 wright' s execution, the substance is given of a document, stated 
 to have been drawn up by Henry Wainwright and sent to the 
 Home Secretary. In this he says that he had grown weary of 
 the importunities of Harriet Lane and her threats of exposure, 
 and that he confided his trouble to his brother Thomas. The 
 latter replied that he was confident that for a sum of 20 some 
 one could be found to marry Harriet and take her away. Henry 
 gave his brother the money on the understanding that Harriet 
 was to be got rid of in this way. One day Thomas came to 
 him at 84 Whitechapel Road and told him that he had got rid 
 of Harriet. Asked how, he replied that he had shot her, 
 and that her body was lying at 215 Whitechapel Road. 
 " Good God, Tom ! " exclaimed Henry, " what have you done? " 
 He at once threatened to inform the police, but Thomas answered 
 that if he did so he would swear that Henry had done it, and, 
 as Harriet Lane was his paramour and her body on his premises, 
 the case would look very black against him. This reasoning 
 apparently convinced Henry of the wisdom of silence, and " in a 
 moment of excitement " the brothers decided to bury the body, 
 a task performed by the ever ready Thomas. 
 
 Thomas Wainwright was said at the time to have made a 
 statement in a directly opposite sense, according to which Henry 
 was the sole murderer of Harriet Lane. 
 
 It is impossible to say what were the actual circumstances of 
 Harriet Lane's death. To the last, though he admitted the 
 justice of his sentence, Henry Wainwright never confessed to 
 having killed her himself. On the other hand, Major Arthur 
 Griffiths, in his " Chronicles of Newgate," says that a conversa- 
 tion overheard in that prison between the two brothers satis- 
 factorily exonerated Thomas from the guilt of the murder. 
 
 The accounts of the mental attitude of Henry Wainwright 
 during his last hours on earth are conflicting. After his execu- 
 tion the governor of Newgate read a statement in which the 
 condemned man expressed penitence and faith in God and the 
 
 xxxvii
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 mercy of the blessed Saviour. Major Griffiths, however, in the 
 book already quoted, states that Wainwright's demeanour was 
 one of reckless effrontery to the end, and that he died impenitent. 
 The night before his execution he was allowed as a special 
 favour to smoke a cigar. This he did, walking up and down the 
 prison yard with the governor, boasting of his extraordinary 
 successes with women, and recounting his many adventures. 
 " The only sign of feeling he showed," writes Major Griffiths, 
 " was in asking to be allowed to choose the hymns on the 
 Sunday the condemned sermon was preached in the prison 
 ohapel, and this was probably only that he might hear the 
 singing of a lady with a magnificent voice who generally 
 attended the prison services. During the singing of these hymns 
 Wainwright fainted, but whether from real emotion or the 
 desire to make a sensation was never exactly known." 
 
 On the Friday before his execution Wainwright saw his wife 
 and his brother William, who had assisted him in his defence. 
 
 The accounts of Wainwright's demeanour on the scaffold are 
 as conflicting in some respects as those of his mental attitude 
 at the last. On one thing they all agree, the firmness with 
 which he met his death. " The prisoner," wrote the Times 
 reporter, " who had apparently been dressed with scrupulous 
 care, bore himself at this awful crisis with conspicuous fortitude ; 
 and as he stepped upon the drop, his handsome features were 
 lighted up with an expression of resignation, unmixed with 
 anything approaching bravado." According to the account of 
 another spectator, however, Wainwright was not ir quite such a 
 resigned frame of mind nor oblivious to his surroundings. By 
 the invitation of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, though public 
 executions had been abolished, about sixty persons had been 
 invited to the yard of Newgate Prison to witness Wainwright's 
 execution. A friend of the writer who was present describes 
 the scene as "absolutely Hogarthian and horrible," the cold 
 December morning, the waning moon, the rope dangling to and 
 fro in the shed awaiting its victim, a gaslight that flared noisily, 
 the well-dressed crowd of privileged visitors come to see the 
 show, the Sheriffs' footmen, who had some of them obviously 
 fortified their spirits for the occasion; the whole scene seemed 
 to him ghastly and sickening in the last degree. When Wain-
 
 Introduction. 
 
 wright came to the scaffold, said one reporter who was present, 
 he looked round on the assembled spectators with a glance of 
 infinite scorn, and then, with a contemptuous movement of his 
 head, muttered, " Come to see a man die, have you, you curs 1 " 
 " Villain though he was," added the narrator, " he did die like 
 a man, and I have felt sick and mean and ashamed of myself 
 ever since."* 
 
 Wainwright was not the first nor the last man to commit 
 murder in order to preserve a respectable character. For that 
 and no other reason, John Taw ell, the Quaker, murdered, in 
 1845, his mistress, Sarah Hart. His sole motive for the crime 
 was, he said, to prevent his wife, with whom he had been for 
 four years living as a highly respected and respectable gentle- 
 man, from discovering his infidelity. Tawell had as a young 
 man been transported from England for forgery. In Australia 
 he soon obtained a good conduct ticket-of-leave, and set up 
 business in Sydney as a chemist. There always forward in good 
 works, he soon came to be looked on as a " very saintly per- 
 sonage." He made a' comfortable fortune and returned to 
 England. After his first wife's death he had formed an illicit 
 connection with Sarah Hart, a servant in his house, by whom 
 he had two children. On his marrying again, his mistress left 
 his house and went to live at Slough, Tawell' a second wife being 
 kept in complete ignorance of her existence. At Berkhamp- 
 stead, where Tawell lived, he acquired a considerable reputation 
 for piety, generosity, and benevolence, and, though after his 
 conviction for forgery he had been expelled from the Quakers, 
 and they had refused on his return to England to receive him 
 again into their society, he always wore their characteristic 
 dress. At the time of Sarah Hart's death Tawell' s fortune had 
 considerably diminished, so that, apart from any fears he may 
 have had of his intrigue becoming known to his wife, the expense 
 of keeping Sarah Hart and her children had begun to be burden- 
 some. After attempting, some months earlier, to poison her 
 with morphia, he killed her by giving her prussic acid in a glass 
 of stout. 
 
 * " The Spice of Life," by Thornmanby, p. 122. 
 
 xzxix
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 In a manner similar to that of Wainwright, by shooting her 
 and then cutting her throat, John Beale, a manservant, in the 
 year 1857, murdered in Leigh Woods, Clifton, a woman whom 
 he had seduced and promised to marry, though he was in fact 
 a married man. And two years after Wainwright's trial, a 
 seemingly pious, chapel-going young "Welshman, named Cad- 
 wallader Jones, murdered at Dolgelly, under circumstances of 
 great ferocity, a woman of light character with whom he had 
 carried on a clandestine intrigue. She had become with child 
 by him, and threatened to reveal her condition to his wife. At 
 the end of a violent scene between them Cadwallader Jones beat 
 her to death with a heavy stone, cut up her remains, and threw 
 the pieces into the river. A week later a young man fishing 
 in the river brought up a human hand. This discovery led to 
 the finding of the rest of the remains, and Cadwallader Jones, 
 who from the first confessed his guilt, was tried and executed. 
 
 Of these murderers to save appearances Wainwright was 
 undoubtedly the most successful. For a whole year his crime 
 was concealed, and everything pointed to the efficacy of the new 
 hiding-place which he had chosen for the remains of his victim. 
 There is something inexplicable in his want of judgment at the 
 last in the handling of the parcels. Whether it arose from 
 over -confidence or want of nerve, his mistake in leaving Stokes 
 with the parcels appears to be a neglect of the most obvious 
 precaution under the circumstances. In the stress of an actual 
 murder such carelessness, even in the matter of an essential 
 detail, is intelligible. But with no excuse for hurry or trepida- 
 tion, with everything in favour of the carrying out of a plain 
 and simple scheme, it is difficult to understand Wainwright's 
 lapse. It looks like over-confidence, for he seems to have been 
 calm enough that afternoon. He betrays no sign of uneasiness 
 to Stokes ; he meets Miss Day and invites her to drive with him ; 
 he sits in the cab smoking and thinking. Perhaps he underrated 
 the intelligence of Stokes, which does not appear to have been 
 very great. This failure of Wainwright's at the last moment 
 remains one of the mysteries of the case. 
 
 The dual nature of the man is remarkable. Externally, to 
 the world, Wainwright was a kind, genial, generous sort of 
 fellow, vain, caring much for the regard of his fellow-men, no 
 xl
 
 Introduction. 
 
 doubt amiable and pleasant at his home. He seems to have had 
 a sense of the dramatic in life. Who knows if the peculiar 
 situation of a Eugene Aram had some strange attraction for 
 him? But under his pleasing exterior Wainwright concealed 
 dangerous qualities. He was strongly sensual in his appetites. 
 He was fond of good food ; he had the physical well-being of a 
 certain type of I'homme d femmes. He seems to have looked on 
 women as his natural prey, and with such a temperament as this 
 cruelty and a want of sensibility are often found associated. 
 But he had kept the secret of this baser side of his character well 
 hidden from the world, and great was the surprise of Henry 
 Wainwright' s many friends when he stood suddenly revealed to 
 the world as a deliberate and heartless murderer. It may be 
 that Wainwright killed Harriet Lane as much because her 
 obstinate attachment to him promised to be a hindrance to his 
 pleasures as from the desire to preserve his reputation before 
 the world. The double motive expresses the man's character, 
 his desire to stand well in the eyes of his fellow-men, and, 
 unknown to them, to indulge to the full in the gratification of 
 his passions. 
 
 A shock, somewhat similar to that occasioned to his friends 
 by Wainwright' s sudden appearance as a murderer, was felt by 
 the friends of his namesake, Thomas Griffiths Wainewright, 
 when he stood revealed to them as a forger and secret poisoner. 
 Though Thomas Griffiths, artist and man of letters, the friend 
 of Hazlitt and Charles Lamb, would deeply resent comparison 
 with Heniy Wainwright, brushmaker in the Whitechapel Road, 
 being in the same category of crime he cannot avoid it. In 
 various circles in life both these criminals imposed successfully 
 on their fellow-men by their attractive and showy qualities, and 
 were looked on as harmless, good fellows in whose society it was 
 pleasant to find one's self. "Kind, light-hearted Waine- 
 wright! " was Charles Lamb's regretful comment on the dis- 
 appearance from society of his criminal friend. No doubt 
 similar expressions of regret were heard in the Whitechapel Road 
 during the September of 1875. Thonras Griffiths wrote art 
 criticism and painted pictures; Henry Wainwright lectured on 
 books and recited poetry. Literature appealed to them. 
 D xli
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Thomas Griffiths " wept tears of gratitude and happiness " over 
 Wordsworth; Henry Wainwright was an admiring expounder of 
 the art of Sydney Smith and the poetry of Tom Moore. But 
 the influence of such elevating pursuits had in neither case any 
 effect on character; it did not save Thomas Griffiths from being 
 one of the most wicked and heartless poisoners that ever lived, 
 nor Henry Wainwright from the guilt of a cruel murder. Both 
 men were sensualists, both spendthrift and extravagant. There 
 comparison ends. " Janus Weathercock " was no doubt a very 
 superior person in many respects to the brushmaker in the 
 Whitechapel Road; he was at the same time unquestionably the 
 greater villain of the two. 
 
 xlii
 
 Leading Dates in the cases of Henry and 
 Thomas Wainwright. 
 
 1862. 
 1871. 
 
 1872. 
 February 10 
 
 August 22 
 
 1873. 
 December 3 
 
 1874. 
 
 March 
 
 May 
 September 
 
 10 
 11 
 
 October 17 
 November 
 
 27 
 
 1875. 
 June 30 
 
 July 
 
 September 10 
 11 
 
 Henry Wainwright is married. 
 He first meets Harriet Lane. 
 
 Henry Wainwright and Harriet Lane advertise a marriage 
 as Mr. and Mrs. Percy King. 
 
 Harriet Lane gives birth to a child. 
 A second child is born. 
 
 Wainwright compounds with his creditors. 
 Harriet Lane moves to lodgings in Sidney Square. 
 
 Wainwright executes a mortgage on his premises in 
 the Whitechapel Road. 
 
 Wainwright purchases chloride of lime. 
 
 Harriet Lane leaves her lodgings to go to meet 
 Wainwright, and is never seen again alive. 
 
 "Edward Frieake" telegraphs from Dover that he has 
 gone on the continent with Harriet Lane. 
 
 Thomas Wainwright starts an ironmongery business at 
 the Hen and Chickens in the Borough. 
 
 Wainwright's premises at No. 84 Whitechapel Road are 
 destroyed by fire. His claim against the Insurance 
 Company is disputed. 
 
 Wainwright is declared bankrupt. 
 
 The mortgagee takes possession of the premises at 215 
 
 Whitechapel Road. 
 Henry and Thomas Wainwright buy some American 
 
 cloth, a spade and chopper. 
 Henry Wainwright is arrested in taking the remains of 
 
 Harriet Lane from the Whitechapel Road to the Hen 
 
 and Chickens. 
 
 xllli
 
 October 
 
 13 
 
 27 
 
 November 22 
 December 1 
 
 December 21 
 
 LEADING DATES. 
 
 Wainwright and Alice Day charged at Southwark Police 
 Court with having in their possession the mutilated 
 body of a woman unknown, supposed to have been 
 murdered. 
 
 Inquest opened at the Vestry, St. Saviour's, Southwark. 
 
 Wainwright charged with wilful murder of Harriet 
 Lane, Alice Day discharged. 
 
 Thomas Wainwright arrested. 
 
 He is charged at Southwark Police Court, as accessory 
 after the fact. 
 
 Henry and Thomas Wainwright committed for trial. 
 
 Coroner's jury return verdict of wilful murder against 
 Henry Wainwright. 
 
 Grand jury at Central Criminal Court find true bills 
 against Henry and Thomas Wainwright. 
 
 Trial postponed to November sessions. 
 Trial commences. 
 
 Henry Wainwright sentenced to death, Thomas 
 Wainwright to seven years penal servitude. 
 
 Henry Wainwright executed at Newgate. 
 
 xliv
 
 THE TRIAL. 
 
 CENTEAL CRIMINAL COURT. 
 
 MONDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER, 1875. 
 The Court met at Ten o'clock. 
 
 Judge 
 
 THE LOKD CHIEF- JUSTICE OF ENGLAND (Sir James Alexander 
 Cockburn, Bart.). 
 
 Counsel for the Crown 
 
 THE ATTOENEY-GENERAL (Sir John Holker, Q.C.). 
 Mr. H. B. POLAND. 
 Mr. BEASLEY. 
 Instructed by Mr. POLLARD on behalf of the Treasury. 
 
 Counsel for Henry Wainwright 
 
 Mr. EDWARD BESLEY. 
 Mr. DOUGLAS STRAIGHT. 
 Mr. TICKELL. 
 Mr. C. F. GILL. 
 Instructed by Mr. PELHAM. 
 
 Counsel for Thomas George Wainwright 
 Mr. MOODY.
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 HENRY WAINWRIGHT (thirty-seven), brush manufacturer, and 
 THOMAS GEORGE WAINWRIGHT (thirty), ironmonger, 
 remanded from last session, were indicted for the wilful 
 murder of Harriet Louisa Lane. In a second count Henry 
 Wainwright was alleged to have committed the murder, 
 and Thomas George Wainwright was charged as an acces- 
 sory after the fact. A third count stated the deceased to 
 be a woman unknown. 
 
 The Jury having been duly empanelled and sworn, 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in opening the case for the prosecu- 
 tion, referred to the relationship between the two prisoners, and 
 then touched upon Henry Wainwright' s introduction to and 
 acquaintance with Harriet Lane, which ripened into a close 
 intimacy, the woman ultimately becoming the mistress of the 
 prisoner under the name of Mrs. King. In August, 1872, 
 Mrs. King had a child by Henry Wainwright, and in October, 
 1873, he took lodgings for her at 70 St. Peter Street, where 
 she lived until April, 1874, another child being born there. 
 Whilst she was in St. Peter Street, the prisoner used to visit 
 her, and letters passed between them, some of which showed that 
 Henry Wainwright, or " Mr. King," and Mrs. King were not 
 on very good terms. In one letter he strongly requested her 
 not to write to him again. However, in April, 1874, Mrs. King 
 left the house, 70 St. Peter Street, and she was taken by him, 
 with her two children and a nurse, to Mre. Foster's, 3 Sidney 
 Square, he telling Mrs. Foster that he wanted apartments for 
 his wife and his children and nurse. During the time Mrs. 
 King was residing at Mrs. Fosters, Miss Wilmore, who had 
 known Mrs. King at Waltham, used to go and see her. Whilst 
 this woman was paying her visits after April, 1874 Henry 
 Wainwright must have got into very embarrassed circumstances, 
 for in June he was declared a bankrupt. He had a wife and 
 four children at this time living at Tredegar Square ; and he (the 
 Attorney-General) thought he should be able to show that he 
 had an entanglement with another woman, if not other women. 
 From the evidence they should also gather that the prisoner had 
 lost some of his affection for Mrs. King; for during the time 
 she was living at Mrs. Foster's she was, very seldom visited by 
 him, and although he sent people to her, he gave her very little 
 money. When he did call upon her. angry words were heard 
 proceeding from the apartment in which the prisoner and Mrs. 
 King were. Wainwright was no doubt worried by Mrs. King 
 very considerably, by her making demands for money, and 
 perhaps she accompanied these demands by threats, declaring 
 2
 
 Mr. II. B. Poland.
 
 Opening Address to Jury. 
 
 that she would go to Mrs. Wainwright if he did not meet her The Attorney- 
 requests. It would be proved that the prisoner became so Genepal - 
 finliarrassed that he sent some one to pawn a revolver. This 
 showed that the prisoner was in embarrassed circumstances, 
 and also that he had a revolver. 
 
 Now, during the time Mrs. King was living at Mrs. Foster's, 
 there came to see her a man known by the. name of Edward 
 Frieake. In reference to this individual, the following letter 
 was received by Mrs. King from Wainwright: " Dear Pet, 
 E. F. is coming down at seven to-night, and will give you a call 
 with a message from me. P. K." He (the Attorney-General) 
 read this for the purpose of showing that he did not come of his 
 own accord to see Mrs. King, but was sent there. Besides this 
 man Frieake, Henry Wainwright had a friend also named 
 Edward Frieake, but to him, as the evidence would show, Mrs. 
 King was unknown. 
 
 The Attorney-General then proceeded to allude to the occasion 
 on which Mrs. King came home intoxicated with the prisoner 
 Henry and the man who had been introduced to her as " Teddy 
 Frieake." Up to this time Mrs. King's conduct had been exceed- 
 ingly good, and she was very much liked by those with whom 
 she was brought in contact. In consequence of this piece of 
 bad conduct, however, Mrs. Foster gave Mrs. King notice to 
 leave, which would expire on Wednesday, 9th September, 1874. 
 He would here pause to draw attention to the position of 
 affairs. At this time Henry Wainwright and Mrs. King did not 
 seem to be on very good terms. It was clear that Henry Wain- 
 wright was very considerably embarrassed, that he was very 
 much harassed by Mrs. King by demands for money, which he 
 had not the means of satisfying. It was clear, after this notice 
 to quit had been given, he would have to provide apartments 
 for Mrs. King somewhere else. He would therefore have been 
 put to considerable expense and trouble. It was probable he 
 would say no more that Wainwright was entangled at this time 
 to some extent with other women ; so that altogether he had an 
 adequate motive, if anything could be considered an adequate 
 motive, to desire to get rid of Mrs. King. On behalf of the 
 prosecution he (the Attorney-General) charged that the prisoner 
 had at this time formed a plan to enable him to get rid of the 
 woman, that he had laid the scheme, and that he intended to 
 get rid of her, was making his preparations for it, and that 
 when she had disappeared, he intended to attribute her dis- 
 appearance to Edward Frieake, and induce Mrs. King's parents 
 and friends to believe that she had gone away with some one 
 of that name.
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- To continue the narrative, Mrs. King asked Mrs. Foster to 
 be allowed to remain in her lodgings two days over her time, 
 and permission was given to her, so that the day for leaving 
 would be Friday, the llth. As she had to leave Sidney Square, 
 it was of course necessary that she should make some fresh 
 arrangements, and she was met by Miss Wilmore and Henry 
 Wainwright for the purpose of discussing the question. It was 
 then decided that Miss Wilmore should take some apartments 
 of her own and take charge of the children, whilst Mrs. King 
 went to some place provided for her by Henry Wainwright. 
 At that time Mrs. King received a sum of money from Henry 
 for the purpose of paying her debts and getting her things out 
 of pawn. She got these things on llth September. But he 
 must draw attention to what took place the previous day. On 
 10th September Henry Wainwright bought half a cwt. of chloride 
 of lime, which was sent to No. 84 Whitechapel Road, and subse- 
 quently found its way to No. 215. That might strike them at 
 this stage as an unimportant fact, but their attention would be 
 called to it more than once before they had done. Mrs. King, 
 having redeemed her things from pawn, made arrangements 
 to leave the house where she was then living. It was arranged 
 that Miss Wilmore was to leave on the same day, but later, 
 for the new lodgings at Grove Street, Stratford. About four 
 o'clock on llth September Mrs. King left, taking only a night- 
 dress with her. She bade good-bye, kissed her children, and 
 bade them farewell a long farewell, for after that the poor 
 woman was never seen. On the same afternoon three work- 
 men were making some repairs on the premises next door to 
 215 Whitechapel Road, between five and seven o'clock. This 
 warehouse was immediately adjoining those of Wainwright. 
 Well, these workmen heard three pistol shots fired in rapid 
 succession, and after that all was still. At first they thought 
 the shots had been fired by a person named Pinnell, who, they 
 knew, had such a weapon, which he occasionally fired. They 
 went down, but not seeing any one, they returned to their 
 work. He should have other evidence to bring before the jury, 
 from which they might possibly conclude that these shots killed 
 the woman, that her body was stripped and laid in a grave 
 prepared for the purpose on the ground floor of the workshop 
 of Henry Wainwright. The body having been laid there, was 
 covered with a layer of chloride of lime. Any one who was not 
 ignorant would have known that chloride of lime would keep a 
 body, but an ignorant person might have supposed either that 
 it would prevent the exhalations consequent upon decomposition, 
 or would destroy identity altogether. 
 4
 
 Opening Address to Jury. 
 
 Now he had already told them that when Mrs. King went The Attorney- 
 away on the llth September she was not prepared for any enera 
 lengthened stay, having only a nightdress in a parcel. Miss 
 Wilmore certainly expected she would return. After a few days, 
 not hearing anything further about the missing woman, Miss 
 Wilmore and Mrs. Taylor, sister of Harriet Lane, went to see 
 Wainwright. In answer to the inquiries of Mrs. Taylor about 
 her sister, he said he did not know, but he had given her 15 
 before she left, and as she had no outfit, he gave her 10 more 
 to buy clothes with. He understood that she had gone to 
 Brighton with a person named Frieake, an auctioneer, who had 
 lately come into a lot of money, and no doubt when it was spent 
 they would come back. He added, however, that if she did come 
 back they could not expect him to receive her again, but he 
 promised to do something for the education of the children. A 
 few days afterwards she received a letter purporting to have 
 come from Frieake, to the effect that he was very much sur- 
 prised at not having received a reply to his last letter, in which 
 he had given all particulars as to the arrangements he had made 
 with Mrs. King. The writer said she had solemnly promised 
 never to see or speak to King or any of her own friends, and 
 on these conditions, and on condition that she kept her 
 promises, he would marry her in a few weeks. He wished them 
 distinctly to understand that she was never to see her friends ; 
 and he added in a postscript, " We are just off to Dover." Miss 
 Wilmore saw Mrs. Taylor, had an interview with Henry Wain- 
 wright, and in the course of the conversation told him of the 
 letter. He said he had received a similar one. He read portions 
 of it, and it agreed with that received by Mrs. Taylor. He paid 
 Miss Wilmore a sum of money to keep the children. 
 
 The father of Harriet Lane was very anxious to hear about 
 his daughter, and, through Mr. Eeles, he set inquiries about her 
 on foot. This person saw Henry Wainwright, and the prisoner 
 told him that Mrs. King had gone off with Teddy Frieake, who 
 had come into a lot of money. Mr. Eeles at once went to Mr. 
 Frieake, and in consequence of what the latter said, Eeles and 
 he went to Wainwright, and the prisoner said, " Oh, it is not 
 you; it is another Frieake." Mr. Frieake, however, remem- 
 bered having got a letter the previous September from Mrs. 
 King. He searched, found it, and he and Eeles again went down 
 to see Wainwright. Old Mr. Lane was there at the time. 
 Frieake showed the prisoner the letter. He read it, put it down, 
 and reiterated the statement that it was another Frieake, not the 
 person then present. They then went away. From time to time 
 the prisoner said Mrs. King had been seen, and no doubt she 
 would turn up in course of time. 
 
 5
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Genera rney ~ The Attorne y- Genera l th en proceeded, by the aid of models 
 in Court, to describe to the jury the premises at 84 and 215 
 Whitechapel Road. Rogers, Henry Wainwright's manager, 
 removed from 84 to 215 in October, 1874, and remained till 
 April, 1875, and at the time they went in they were annoyed 
 by a smell which he suggested did not come from ashes, as they 
 thought, but from the body of the murdered woman, which was 
 covered with a thin layer of earth and chloride of lime. Towards 
 the end of January the inquiries for Mrs. King ceased, and her 
 boxes were given up to old Mr. Lane on 21st January. But 
 though the inquiries ceased, the danger of the discovery of the 
 body increased. 
 
 About the beginning of 1875 the prisoner Thomas obtained 
 a sum of money from Mr. Lewis by a bill of exchange, with 
 which he re-established himself at the sign of the Hen and 
 Chickens in the Borough. He had been making arrangements 
 for it, and got it in February. In June, Mr. Lewis took posses- 
 sion of the premises in lieu of his money, also the stock that 
 Thomas had put into the shop. It was necessary for Lewis 
 to keep possession of the premises, and in order to do so he put 
 a new lock on the door, and kept the key himself. 
 
 After reading a letter sent by Henry Wainwright to Miss 
 Wilmore, stating that he " could do nothing until November," 
 the Attorney-General went on to state that Mr. Behrend, Henry 
 Wainwright's mortgagee, took possession of the premises, 215 
 Whitechapel Road, and advertised them for sale. A woman 
 named Mrs. Izzard was put in occupation of the house, and it 
 thus became necessary for the prisoner Henry Wainwright to 
 dispose of the body, he still having access to the premises. 
 On 10th September, 1875, Henry Wainwright purchased a piece 
 of American cloth, and Thomas purchased a chopper and a 
 shovel. On the morning of llth September both the prisoners 
 were seen talking together outside Mr. Martin's shop (where 
 Henry was a manager), and the young man spoke to them. 
 Thomas then seemed ill, and he had shaved off his moustache. 
 About four o'clock that afternoon Stokes and Henry Wainwright 
 left Mr. Martin's shop to go to 215 Whitechapel Road. 
 
 The Attorney-General then described the removal of the 
 packages containing the parts of the deceased's body in a cab 
 from Whitechapel Road to the Hen and Chickens. Stokes, 
 having seen the hand of a woman, followed the cab over London 
 Bridge, and attracted the attention of a policeman. When the 
 police constables were about to open the parcels, the prisoner 
 Henry, who was accompanied by a young woman named Alice 
 Day, said, " For God's sake don't touch it, and I will give you
 
 Opening Address to Jury. 
 
 200, and produce the money in twenty minutes." On being The Attorney- 
 removed with Alice Day to the police station, a key was found en 
 in the possession of the prisoner Henry, which fitted the padlock 
 which was attached to the door of the Hen and Chickens, and 
 which Thomas had obtained in June from Mr. Lewis' office. In 
 a cellar at the Hen and Chickens a grave was already prepared 
 for the reception of the remains, just such a place as a person 
 would wish to conceal a murdered body in. The police went 
 to the premises, 215 Whitechapel Road. They found a chopper, 
 a spade, and a knife, and also that the flooring had been cut 
 through, and a shallow grave about 3 feet in depth had been 
 made; something had evidently recently been taken out of the 
 grave, which, besides articles belonging to the deceased, con- 
 tained a considerable quantity of chloride of lime. In the fire- 
 grate certain discoveries were made which showed that clothes 
 had been consumed there. 
 
 Harriet Lane seemed to have been of attractive appearance. 
 She had a quantity of light golden hair, which she made into 
 the form of a pad, fastened by a number of hairpins. In the 
 pad the police found a conical bullet which fitted the pistol 
 belonged to Henry Wainwright. The woman's head had been 
 penetrated by two shots, one behind the ear 'and the other im- 
 mediately in front. The surgeons also found that either before 
 or immediately after death, when the circulation was still, the 
 windpipe had been severed almost to the vertebrae. Either this 
 wound itself or any one of the shots fired would have caused 
 death. 
 
 The prosecution asserted that from the examination of the 
 body there was sufficient evidence that the body was that of 
 Harriet Lane, for the following reasons : The body had been 
 hacked by an unskilful hand in about ten pieces. The body 
 had been put together, and found to be that of a woman 5 feet 
 high. Harriet Lane was 5 feet high. The hands were very 
 small; so were those of Harriet Lane; and the same thing 
 might be said with regard to the feet. The hair, a good deal 
 of which was left, was of the same colour as that of Harriet 
 Lane a light auburn or golden. The hair was attached to a 
 pad, such as Harriet Lane wore, and to which it was attached 
 by innumerable hairpins. The surgeons also found a decayed 
 tooth which had been visible when the deceased spoke or smiled. 
 Harriet Lane had such a tooth. The surgeons were of opinion 
 that the deceased was of the age of Harriet Lane. They found 
 a scar of a remarkable character on the right leg just below the 
 knee. It was about the size of a two-shilling piece. Harriet 
 Lane had such a scar. Some years before a red-hot poker from 
 
 7
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 the fire had fallen on her leg, and produced a severe burn, which, 
 when it healed, left a scar about the size of a two-shilling piece. 
 Besides, these personal appearances, rings were found in the 
 grave such as Harriet Lane had worn, and such as she had got 
 out of pawn prior to llth September, 1874. There were also 
 buttons which had been worn by Harriet Lane. From all these 
 circumstances he should ask the jury to come to the conclusion 
 that this was Harriet Lane. Thus he had. touched upon the 
 evidence which affected Henry Wainwright in the main. Some 
 of the details were very shocking and revolting, but he besought 
 the jury not to allow the character of such details to unsteady 
 their minds, and prevent their coming to a right, a dispassionate, 
 and calm conclusion. 
 
 The learned Attorney-General then briefly called attention to 
 the evidence that affected the prisoner Thomas, and explained 
 the two counts in the indictment one charging the prisoner 
 with being accessory to the murder before the fact, and the 
 second with having been accessory after the fact. There was 
 no doubt Thomas did purchase the hammer and chopper, and 
 he confessed to doing it in the statement which he had made 
 to the police, and which had been taken down in writing. The 
 evidence of Mrs. Foster as to the identifying of the man who 
 had called with Henry Wainwright to see Mrs. King was not very 
 strong, nor could it be called conclusive, but he (the Attorney- 
 General) would strengthen it in this way. A bottle of champagne 
 was brought in on one occasion, and Frieake and Mrs. King 
 drank it. Mrs. Foster had no champagne glasses, and Thomas 
 Wainwright went to a neighbouring public-house to borrow 
 some. The landlord at the public-house would be called, and 
 he would say that on a particular date about the first week in 
 September (and he would give a good reason for remembering 
 the period) the two brothers were in his house for a considerable 
 time discussing some affair or other between themselves, that 
 one of them got a bottle of champagne; that they went out 
 together; and that shortly afterwards Thomas returned and got 
 another bottle of champagne, some glasses having been pre- 
 viously borrowed. Although the evidence of Mrs. Foster could 
 not be considered as conclusive as to identity, still that, taken 
 with the evidence of the publican, became strong. 
 
 The question then arose, why was the prisoner Thomas there? 
 That Mrs. King believed the man to be Frieake was perfectly 
 clear, and if the prisoner Henry had formed the plan which had 
 been alluded to, then it would be necessary to introduce a person 
 named Frieake on the scene. This was the reason, he submitted, 
 why Thomas had represented Edward Frieake. The Attorney-
 
 No. 215 Whitechapel Road 
 
 (Where Henry Wainwright carried on business as a brushmaker).
 
 Opening Address to Jury. 
 
 General quoted the letter that purported to have been written TheAttorney- 
 
 by E. Frieake, about the promise said to have been made by enepa 
 
 Harriet Lane, and said if there was any desire to get rid of 
 
 the woman this was just such a letter as would have been 
 
 written for the purpose. Then there were the telegrams and 
 
 the key of the premises of Lewis, which must have been handed 
 
 by Thomas to Henry. Then on 10th September both prisoners 
 
 were found buying implements together which were necesbdiy 
 
 for the murder. The only remaining portion of the evidence 
 
 was that he was seen with his brother in a public-house the 
 
 previous evening. Some one must have been engaged for a 
 
 long time, for the business transacted could not have been 
 
 despatched at once. Some one was there, either alone or in 
 
 company with some one else, and it would take some time to 
 
 dig the grave, hack up the body in the way that was done, and 
 
 bury it. Next morning Thomas was seen looking haggard and 
 
 pale, with his moustache shaved off, and was spoken to on the 
 
 subject by those who had noticed it. He said he had been at this 
 
 place, and that on the previous day he had spent a long time 
 
 in the Surrey Gardens. They were not going to bring any 
 
 evidence, either to rebut or confirm the statement made before 
 
 the magistrates. If any explanations for these facts were given, 
 
 which were consistent with innocence, if any explanations which 
 
 would satisfy any reasonable mind that they were consistent 
 
 with innocence were given, well and good. But if no such 
 
 explanations could be given, they would be entitled in the face 
 
 of the proof of guilt to act upon them. 
 
 Evidence for the Prosecution. 
 
 JOHN BUTLER, examined by Mr. POLAND I am deputy- j h n Butler 
 surveyor of the Metropolitan Police Board. I know the premises 
 215 Whitechapel Road. They are on the right-hand side going 
 from London. The model of the building produced is an accurate 
 one. It embraces Mr. PinnelPs premises, and Mr. Wiseman's 
 next, and extends back to the back of Mr. Pinnell's premises, 
 and goes beyond at the back into Vine Court. I also produce 
 the ground plan showing the exit by Vine Court. I also produce 
 a plan of the neighbourhood in which these houses are situated. 
 It includes the premises at No. 215, No. 84 on the other side of 
 the road, and Sidney Square on the left. I produce a model 
 of the cellar at the Hen and Chickens, which I made myself. 
 The only entrance to the cellar is down these steps, and when 
 you get into the cellar there is no window or light, or any access
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 John Butler except down the steps. At the bottom of the steps there is an 
 inner cellar of brickwork, and a hole in the brickwork 2 feet 
 6 to 3 feet, which I believe has been always there. I got 
 through it. There was a quantity of loose earth. I also produce 
 the ground plan and a plan from London Bridge to the back at 
 the corner, showing the Hen and Chickens. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET There is no door at the top 
 of the stairs leading to the cellar. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What do you mean by " loose 
 earth," which you say you found there? When the props were 
 put up to support the flooring above they excavated some of the 
 loose earth to make the foundations for the props, and did not 
 remove it afterwards. 
 
 A. P. Stokes ALFRED PHILIP STOKES, examined by Mr. POLAND I live at 
 34 Baker's Row, Whitechapel, and I am a brushmaker. In 
 September of the present year I was in the service of Mr. Martin 
 as manager at 78 New Road, Whitechapel. The prisoner Henry 
 Wainwright was also in Mr. Martin's employment as a manager. 
 I had been in this service about five or six weeks before the par- 
 ticular' Saturday, and Heniy Wainwright had been in service 
 about eleven weeks. I have known Henry Wainwright. for 
 seventeen or eighteen years. He carried on business formerly 
 at 84 Whitechapel Road, the shop at which the articles were 
 sold. He was a brushmaker. I did work for him, but away 
 from the premises, and when I had finished I took it to 84 
 Whitechapel Road. I had worked for him between seventeen 
 and eighteen years. I knew the premises No. 215 Whitechapel 
 Road as a packing place. West, his chief clerk, who lived there 
 first, left some time in July, 1874, and from that time no one 
 lived there until Mr. Rogers went to occupy them in November 
 of the same year. They were shut up at night, but were used 
 for packing purposes. I believe the keys were always left in the 
 counting-house at No. 84 until the fire. Henry Wainwright 
 went out of business about a month before he went into Mr. 
 Martin's service. He told me he was living at Schoolhouse Lane, 
 Chingford, but I never went there. In September of this, year, 
 on Thursday or Friday, the 9th or 10th, I believe, but I cannot 
 say which, I had some conversation with Henry. I told him I 
 had. bought a chain for the scales. He said, " Oh, yes ! it is 
 very useful," and then he said, " I have a chopper and a shovel 
 to sell likewise which will be very useful." I said, "Yes, so 
 they will, sir, as we require them for the place." I next saw 
 him on the Saturday morning, but nothing happened till about 
 half-past four, when, in Mr. Martin's presence, he said, " Will 
 10
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 you carry a parcel for me, Stokes?" I said, "Yes, sir, with A. P. Stokes 
 the greatest of pleasure." We then went together to 215 White- 
 chapel Road, in through Vine Court to the back premises. 
 Henry took a key out of his pocket and opened the door. We 
 both went in, and .he told me to go upstairs and fetch down a 
 parcel. I went upstairs, and through by the skylight into the 
 dwelling-room, 80 or 90 feet from the point where we came in, 
 but did not find the parcel. I came downstairs and told him 
 I could not find it; he said, " Never mind, Stokes, I will find 
 them where I placed them a fortnight ago, under the straw." 
 I saw some straw up in a corner, and two parcels wrapped in 
 black American cloth, and tied up with rope. He said, " These 
 are the parcels I want you to carry, Stokes." I lifted them 
 up, and I says, " They are too heavy for me," and put them 
 down. He said, " Wait a bit, Stokes. Here is the shovel and 
 chopper I want you to sell for me." He had told me that he 
 wanted me to sell them to Mr. Martin, my employer. I saw 
 a shovel and chopper and a hammer lying near. I said, " All 
 right, sir," and I picked up the chopper, and said, " What's 
 this on it? It stinks." I saw some mess on it. He said, " It 
 is only cat's or dog's dirt." He took it in his hands, and wiped 
 it off, and then wiped it on a piece of newspaper, and laid it 
 on the floor. 
 
 When you made the observation you saw something on the 
 chopper some mess? Yes. He afterwards said, " Come 
 along, Stokes." I picked up both parcels and followed him. 
 I then said, " I can't carry them; they stink so bad, and the 
 weight of them is too heavy for me." He said, " I will take 
 one off you at the bottom of Vine Court." As I walked to the 
 door he said, " Wait a bit, Stokes. Let me see if old Mr. 
 Johnson is watching us." 
 
 Who is Johnson ? A decorator living somewhere in the Mile- 
 End Road. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Why should he be watching? 
 Did his premises overlook those of the prisoner? Oh, no; but 
 I have often seen him watching. 
 
 Examination continued Prisoner said to me, " All right, 
 Stokes, no one is looking. Come on." I noticed a hammer 
 in the place, but nothing else. I carried the two parcels out of 
 the premises from Vine Court into Whitechapel Road. He took 
 the lightest of the parcels from me, and we walked to White- 
 chapel Church, which would be about a quarter of a mile. As 
 we were going on I said, " I shall have to rest, sir. It's too 
 heavy for me. I cannot carry it." He replied, " For God's 
 sake don't drop it, or else you will break it." When we got 
 
 11
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 A. P. Stokes to Whitechapel Church he said to me, "Stokes, mind these 
 parcels while I go and fetch a cab." I said, " All right, sir," 
 and he went for the cab. 
 
 Did he put the parcel down? Yes, alongside of mine, 
 opposite Blyth's, the wireworker, and he went towards a cab- 
 stand. 
 
 Whilst he was away what did you do? I looked into the 
 parcel, the one I carried myself. I felt as I must do it. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Never mind what you felt you 
 must do. You were asked what you did? I looked into the 
 largest parcel. I opened the top of the parcel, and the first 
 thing I saw was a human hand. Then proceeding further I saw 
 a hand, which had been cut off at the wrist. 
 
 Examination continued Then I had the presence of mind 
 to cover the parcel up again quick. I then waited until Wain- 
 wright returned with the cab, which was in about five minutes. 
 It was a four-wheeled cab. When he came with it he asked me 
 
 to help him to put the parcels in, ard I did so with a little 
 hesitation. I put one in the bottom of the cab, and he put the 
 other there also. 
 
 Did he say anything to you? He said he would see me at 
 seven o'clock in the evening. I answered, " All right, sir," 
 and then he got into the cab, and drove off up Church Lane 
 towards East India Docks. 
 
 Where were you to see him? At my place. He did not say 
 why. 
 
 Did you follow the cab? Yes. 
 
 Did you notice whether he was smoking? He was not smok- 
 ing when he got into the cab, but was when he got out. The 
 prisoner told the cabman to drive up Commercial Road, " round 
 to the left," and the man did so down Church Lane to the 
 Commercial Road. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICES You saw them to the corner, 
 did you not? Yes ; the cab went so far as the chemist's shop 
 in Commercial Road on the left, and I followed, running. At 
 the chemist's shop, close to Greenfield Street, the cab stopped. 
 Greenfield Street would be about 70 yards from Church Lane. 
 
 Examination continued Did Wainwright get out? Yes; he 
 walked towards the West India Dock away from the city. He 
 was there met by a young woman called Alice Day. 
 
 Do you know her ? Yes, I do. He talked with her for about 
 one minute, and then came back with her to the cab. 
 
 Did you notice where she had been? Yes; she was at the 
 corner of the street, waiting. 
 
 Where were you at this time? Hiding in a doorway opposite. 
 
 12
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 He said to the cabman, " Drive on as fast as you can over A. P. Stokes 
 
 London Bridge to the Borough." The cab turned round and 
 
 went in the direction of the City. I ran after the cab until I 
 
 saw two constables by Leadenhall Street. I was very exhausted, 
 
 and called their attention to the cab. But they laughed, and 
 
 said, " Man, you must be mad." I called to them to stop the 
 
 cab, but did not tell them why. I could scarcely speak at the 
 
 time. The cab was then 30 yards at least ahead from me. I 
 
 ran after it, and followed it by Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch 
 
 Street over London Bridge. It stopped beside the factory, on 
 
 the right-hand side of the Borough, which is part of the premises 
 
 of the London Joint Stock Bank. From the place where it 
 
 stopped, by standing a little on one side, one can see the 
 
 Hen and Chickens. It stopped close to the pavement. There 
 
 were two police constables close behind me. I saw Henry Wain- 
 
 wright put out his hand, which caused the cab to stop at the 
 
 entrance ; he got out, took the lightest parcel, and went towards 
 
 the Hen and Chickens. The names of the constables are Turner 
 
 and Cox, No. 48 and No. 290. I said, " For God's sake, run 
 
 after that man with the high hat, with the parcels in his hand. 
 
 There is something wrong." Turner went instantly, and on 
 
 my telling Cox what I had seen he went to the cab. I told 
 
 Turner not to touch him, but to follow him and see where he 
 
 was going. Alice Day was in the cab, and Cox spoke to her, 
 
 but I did not hear the words. I saw Turner follow Henry 
 
 Wainwright to the Hen and Chickens on the other side. In a 
 
 short time Wainwright returned. He went to the cab to get 
 
 the other parcel. I did not notice what he did then. I went 
 
 back to my employer, Mr. Martin, knowing that they were in 
 
 good hands. I was so exhausted that I felt I should drop if I 
 
 stayed any longer. 
 
 When Henry Wainwright had the conversation with me 
 about the chopper and the shovel, he said, " Ask Mr. Martin 
 to buy them in the presence of me, and I will say they are 
 very useful. Will you call for them on Monday morning, 
 Stokes? " I said, " How much shall I ask for them? " He 
 replied, " I will leave that to you." I was to say they were 
 my own, and sell them in my own name. I had known Alice 
 Day for three or four years. She was engaged at the Pavilion 
 Theatre as a ballet girl. The front entrance of the theatre 
 is next door to 84 Whiteohapel Road. I had seen her many 
 times with Henry Wainwright before this Saturday, in public- 
 houses and walking out in the street together. I had seen the 
 two together in Commercial Road about a fortnight or three 
 weeks previous to this Saturday. I had seen Thomas Wain- 
 
 13
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 A. P. Stokes wright coming to the shop in Whitechapel Road when he was 
 only a young man, and I knew him as the brother of Henry. 
 He kept the Hen and Chickens, in the Borough, but I don't 
 know where he lived in September, 1874 or 1875. I have been 
 outside the door many times waiting for Mr. Wainwright. A 
 few months before September, in July, I noticed a smell in No. 
 215 Whitechapel Road. It appeared to come from the rubbish 
 in the corner close to the paint-room under the warehouse. The 
 rubbish was dirt and cabbage leaves which had been lying there 
 for months. I spoke about it to the clerk and the porter. The 
 rubbish was not removed till after this was found out. I was 
 not in Wainwright' s service. I was employed by him. I made 
 up the work and took it home. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BBSLET I have done work, I and my 
 father, for Wainwright for seventeen or eighteen years, working 
 out of the house. I knew he lived in Tredegar Square. He 
 lived at Chingford nine or ten months he went there from 
 Tredegar Square. When I was in Henry Wainwright's employ- 
 ment I always did my work at home, but I used to go fre- 
 quently to 84 and to 215 Whitechapel Road. For the last three 
 months I went three times a day. After the fire took place, 
 on the 27th November, 1874, I always went to No. 215. I 
 went there at all hours. I am familiar with the warehouse 
 premises, No. 215. When the place is open there is a glass 
 front, an ordinary shop front. You would see from the street 
 back to the end of the warehouse, if the warehouse door were 
 open on entering the shop you could see direct to the back of 
 the warehouse. It was not fitted up like a shop, but was all 
 shelved. It was fully 80 feet from the Whitechapel Road to 
 the back of the house. In the daytime, owing to the circular 
 skylights at the back of the Avarehouse, you could see all over 
 it, except at the side where the stone flagging is, but you 
 cannot see that because it went in a nook, and you cannot see 
 into the paint-room. The stonework which was raised up was 
 by the paint-room. There is a recess like a fireplace there. 
 You cannot see where the stones were raised, from the street. 
 From the glass skylight it would be exceptionally light at that 
 part; there are three skylights, and they have gasaliers; the 
 first had a two-branch burner, and the next the same, and one 
 had an eight-branch burner, but only six of them admitted 
 lights, so that you may call it a six-light burner. There is 
 also one gas light in front of the shop as you go in. There is 
 most light at the furthest end of the warehouse. I have not 
 the least doubt I was there in September in 1874 about twice 
 a day. The gas lights were lighted every evening when the 
 14
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 place was open, but sometimes it used to be closed at dusk A. P. Stokes 
 
 the ordinary time of closing was eight. There were usually two 
 
 men at work on the premises, the clerk, Vostius, and the porter, 
 
 Titienes, and sometimes Mr. Rogers, the traveller. I did not 
 
 go as much to the back part of the warehouse after September 
 
 as before. I ceased to work for Henry Wainwright in June, 
 
 1875, and a short time afterwards went to Mr. Martin's. I left 
 
 Mr. Martin's about eight weeks before the particular Saturday. 
 
 Henry Wainwright was manager at Mr. Martin's at the same 
 
 time as I was;. He looked over one side of the warehouse, and I 
 
 the other. I was present when Mr. Martin took away the 
 
 fixtures. I believe it was the latter end of July or the beginning 
 
 of August. 
 
 Did you take notice of the disagreeable smell there? No; 
 because I had very often smelt a disagreeable smell before, and 
 thought it came from the rubbish, which I knew was there. 
 
 When you were giving your evidence on the 13th September 
 you mentioned the name of Mr. Johnson ? -No, I don't think I 
 did. Neither did I at my first examination say anything about 
 Henry Wainwright speaking to me about the chopper and 
 hammer. I believe I did mention about the prisoner saying to 
 me as we were leaving the premises, " All right. No one is 
 looking. Come on." 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE When did you first mention Mr. 
 Johnson's name? It was at the Treasury, I believe. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (in answer to the Lord Chief Justice 
 as to why Mr. Johnson's name should have been mentioned) said 
 Mr. Johnson had been appointed one of the trustees in the 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You don't seem to have men- 
 tioned before that you were to wait until he looked to see 
 whether Mr. Johnson was watching? Perhaps not.. 
 
 Perhaps not. Do you mean to say you said one thing one 
 day and another thing just now? No ; I am telling the truth. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (after a pause, during which the 
 depositions were scanned) Looking at this shows the import- 
 ance of good writing. It seems to me to be, " I wonder Johnson 
 is not watching us, as he always is." 
 
 Mr. BESLET He says, " I wonder if any one is watching us 
 if Johnson is watching us, as he always is." 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE These are two different statements. 
 You have said one thing before the coroner, and another here. 
 
 Cross-examination continued I am not sure that I have ever 
 attributed the words, " All right; no one is looking, come on," 
 to Wainwright before. It is true, however. 
 
 15
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 A. P. Stokes Did you ever say before, " The weight is so heavy, and the 
 stink so bad " 1 Yes, I did. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Was the smell bad? Yes; it 
 was very bad. I thought it was hair till I got up to Whitechapel 
 Road, because we had been talking about hair on the way to 
 
 ' Cross-examination continued When did you say the parcels 
 were heavy and you could not carry them? I don't know when 
 or where, but I know that I have said it before, either at the 
 inquest or before the magistrate. 
 
 You said to him, " I shall have to have a rest; it is too 
 heavy; I can't carry it "? Yes, I did, and have said it before. 
 Have you been to the Treasury since the committal for trial, 
 or have they sent any one to you? No. I have not had any 
 writing put into my hand, and I have never seen the models 
 produced until to-day. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I was seventeen or eighteen 
 years in the service of Henry Wainwright and his father when 
 the prisoner Thomas was quite a young chap and Henry was a 
 young man. There is not as much as ten years' difference i: 
 age between the brothers. , 
 
 Re-examined by the SoLicrroR-GENERAi^-The prisoners 
 father died about thirteen years ago. After that William and 
 Henry carried on the business as partners; after they ceased to 
 be partners Henry and Mr. Sawyer carried it on. They dis- 
 solved partnership in July, 1874. After that Henry had the 
 place to himself, and carried on the business in both places until 
 the fire. There are gates or folding doors at the front of No. 
 215, with a sort of fanlight over the top. When you get in at 
 the front there are no doors to go through; it is all open space 
 right to the end. At the end of the warehouse, where the 
 skylights are, there was formerly a paint shop or paint room 
 partitioned off from the rest of the room. The flooring of the 
 paint room was a little raised from the rest of the floor, one step ; 
 it was not used to keep paints in, but for storing painting brushes 
 in. There was a door in the partition leading from the body 
 of 'the warehouse into the paint room. On the right as you go 
 in there is a door leading into Vine Court. A little way in front 
 of that doorway the place was flagged. The partition was there 
 when I worked for Henry Wainwright, but it was pulled down 
 in June or July last, I believe, when Mr. Rogers was there. 
 When the fixtures were sold to Mr. Martin the remainder of the 
 fixtures were left, and the gas fittings. There were two lots of 
 fixtures taken away ; the last lot were taken away about August, 
 and the first late in June or the beginning of July. The parti-
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 tion was there then, but not at the time the last lot was taken A. P. Stokes 
 away; it had been removed. What had been the paint room was 
 open to the rest of the room. The flooring of the paint room 
 was boarded, and so was the rest of the warehouse, except the 
 part that was flagged. That was at the furthermost end. The 
 floor of the paint room was raised a little, and then the stone- 
 work of the other place was raised higher still. On entering 
 from Vine Court you would first place your foot upon some 
 flagging which extends a few feet from the entrance. That 
 flagging is a little above the floor of the warehouse. There is a 
 fireplace in the warehouse, about the centre, on the right. When 
 I spoke about hair I was referring to hair that we use in our 
 trade, pigs' bristles. If they are not cleaned and dressed they 
 smell rather peculiar, but not quite so bad as that did. We 
 do not use size; we use pitch or glue. I thought the parcels 
 contained hair. 
 
 By the LORD 'CrnEF JUSTICE Was anything said to you by 
 Henry Wainwright with reference to those parcels that led 
 you to think they contained hair 1 Yes ; as we were going on the 
 road to 215 he said to me, " We want some hair for so-and-so." 
 I said, " Yes, we do, sir." He said, " Well, we must get it 
 on Monday, or else the men won't be able to finish the work." 
 That had no reference to the hair at No. 215, but I thought it 
 was hair for all that. 
 
 HENRY TURNER (policeman M 48), examined by Mr. BEASLET Henry Turner 
 I am an officer in the Metropolitan Police Force. At four 
 minutes past five on the afternoon of llth September of the 
 present year I was on duty in the High Street, Borough, at the 
 corner of St. Thomas Street. I saw the witness Stokes then; 
 he seemed rather excited, and very much exhausted ; he had 
 his hat in his hand, and perspired very much in the face. He 
 made a communication to me, in consequence of which I went 
 up to a cab which had just drawn up. The cabman was just 
 beginning to rein up at the corner of Southwark Street. The 
 prisoner Henry Wainwright got out of it really before it had 
 stopped, with a parcel in his right hand, and, in consequence 
 of what Stokes told me, I followed him to the Hen and Chickens. 
 He put the parcel down on the footway, took a key from his 
 pocket, unlocked the padlock, and went in. I returned to the 
 cab, which was about 40 yards from the Hen and Chickens, 
 and saw another parcel there on the front seat, wrapped in 
 American cloth, 18 inches long and 9 or 10 inches wide. Con- 
 stable Cox, M. 290, was there. I spoke to the young woman 
 in the cab, whom I now know to be Alice Day, and had some 
 
 c 17
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Henry Turner conversation with her. Cox stood behind the cab. I joined 
 him, and waited. Henry Wainwright, on coming out of the 
 house, came and walked straight to the cab. He was smoking 
 a very large cigar. I did not observe whether he was smoking 
 before; his back was towards me. He put the bolt on the 
 door, but did not look it. He took the other parcel out of the 
 cab with his left hand when I spoke to him. I said, " What 
 have you got there, sir? " He said, " Why do you interfere 
 with me? I am only going down to an old friend of mine? " 
 I walked alongside of him under the Town Hall till we got to the 
 Hen and Chickens. The door was shut, but the padlock off. 
 He seemed to want to pass by, but I caught hold of him, and he 
 stopped. I said, "Do you live here?" He said, " No." I 
 said, " Have you got any business here? " He replied, " Yes, 
 and you have not." I said, " Go inside." He seemed dis- 
 inclined to do so, and when Cox joined me we pushed him in. 
 When we got inside I said, "How came you in possession of 
 this place? I thought it belonged to Mr. Lewis? " He 
 answered, "So it does now." He added, " Say nothing, ask 
 no question, and there is 50 each for you." Cox then barred 
 the door on the inside (there was a bar inside, there was no 
 fastening), and we walked a few steps down the shop together. 
 The prisoner Henry had a parcel in his left hand all the time. 
 I said to him, " What did you do with the first parcel you 
 brought here? " He said, " It is only on the first floor." I 
 told Cox to go and look for it. I had hold of the prisoner then. 
 
 We walked down the shop together about half a dozen steps 
 when I saw the parcel in a dark corner on the cellar steps. I 
 called Cox aside and said, " Get hold of this man, and I will see 
 what is in the parcel." . Cox took hold of him. I put the parcel 
 on an old counter, on the left-hand side of the shop, and then 
 perceived what a dreadful stench proceeded from it. Wain- 
 wright said, " Don't open it, policeman; pray don't look at it, 
 whatever you do; don't touch it." I then pulled the cloth 
 over, and my fingers then came right across the scalp of a head, 
 across the ear. I found it contained part of the remains of a 
 human body. I got hold of the prisoner, and Cox went to get 
 the cab. Wainwright then said, " I'll give you 100, I'll give 
 you 200, and produce the money in twenty minutes, if you 
 will let me go." He said nothing more. 
 
 The cab was then brought to the door by Cox, and I put the 
 first parcel into the cab. The prisoner had been holding the 
 second parcel all the time in his left hand. Cox came back for 
 it. The prisoner threw himself round as if to throw the parcel 
 away from him, but he was put into the cab; the woman was 
 
 18
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 still in the cab, and we were driven to the station. Near where Henry Turner 
 the cab was standing you could see to the Hen and Chickens, 
 which was between 40 and 45 yards off. On the way to the 
 station the female who was in the cab said, " Mr. Wainwright, 
 you have done a fine thing for me," to which he did not reply. 
 
 At the station the parcels were put down in the yard, and 
 found to contain the remains of a female body, much decom- 
 posed ; the features were not recognisable ; the hair on the head 
 was very much clotted with blood, lime, and dirt. Mr. Larkin, 
 the surgeon, saw them, and they were taken to St. Saviour's 
 dead-house the same evening. Henry Wainwright and Alice 
 Day were charged about eight o'clock the same evening. The 
 charge was that they had in their possession a human body, 
 decomposed, and supposed to be murdered. Both prisoners 
 then made a statement, which was taken down by Inspector 
 Fox in writing. I found a black leather bag in the cab, an 
 ordinary travelling bag ; it was empty. I did not notice 
 whether there was a newspaper in it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BBSLET When Wainwright took the 
 second parcel out of the cab, I said, " What have you got 
 there? " He laughed, and said, " All right, policeman, I am 
 only going down to a friend of mine." When I mentioned Mr. 
 Lewis' name, he offered to go with me to Mr. Lewis. 
 
 ARTHUR Cox (policeman M 290), examined by the SOLICITOR- AurthurCox 
 GENERAL I was on duty in the High Street, Borough, on llth 
 September, a few minutes after five o'clock. I saw Stokes, who 
 drew my attention to a cab. I went to it and saw a woman in 
 it, and a parcel on the front seat wrapped in American cloth. 
 There was also a black leather bag. Turner spoke to the 
 woman, but I did not hear what he said. A short time after- 
 wards I saw Henry Wainwright come from the direction of the 
 Hen and Chickens, smoking a cigar. He opened the door of the 
 cab nearest the pavement, and took out the parcel lying on the 
 front seat. Turner asked him what he had got in the parcel. 
 He took the cigar from his mouth and said, " All right, police- 
 man. I am only going to a friend of mine." He then turned to 
 me and said, " Why do you interfere with me." I was standing 
 on his left side, Turner on his right. I said, " We have 
 received information that what you have got in the parcel is 
 wrong." Turner, he, and I went towards the Hen and Chickens, 
 but about 50 yards off I went back to the cab. I left police 
 constable 310 in charge, and went back to the Hen and 
 Chickens. Wainwright seemed to have some altercation with 
 Turner, and I heard him say, " No, perhaps you had better." 
 
 19
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Arthur Cox We than pushed him inside the shop door, a little wicket door, 
 and Turner said, " How did you come in possession of this 
 place; it used to belong to Mr. Lewis? " He said, " Come with 
 me to Mr. Lewis, and you'll find it's all right. Say nothing, 
 and ask no questions, and there's 50 for each of you." I 
 said, " No, we are going to do our duty, and we don't want 
 your money." I then said, " Wait, Turner, while I fasten 
 the door," as there was a crowd outside. I then took up an 
 iron bar and placed it against the door. Turner said, " Will 
 you tell me where the other parcel is which you brought in 
 here," and the prisoner said, " It's only on the first floor." I 
 went up five or six steps, when Turner said, " Come down, Cox ; 
 here it is in the corner." I came down, took hold of the prisoner, 
 and Turner, lifting the parcel, put it on an old counter. The 
 prisoner repeated twice, "For goodness sake don't touch it." 
 Turner partially pulled the oilcloth open, and found it contained 
 the remains of a dead body. I sent for a cab, and the prisoner 
 was put in, and he and Alice Day were taken to the station with 
 the parcels, which I ultimately conveyed to St. Saviour's dead- 
 house. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT The head of the cab horse 
 was pointing down the Borough. The cabman was not on the 
 box then; he was standing on the pavement near the horse's 
 
 Adjourned till to-morrow.
 
 Second Day Tuesday, 23rd November, 1875. 
 
 WILLIAM ANDREWS, examined I am a cabman, living in W. Andrews 
 Pearl Street, Spitalfields. On llth September I was on the 
 rank in High Street, Whitechapel. Whilst there a gentleman 
 beckoned me. It was the prisoner Henry Wainwright. I fol- 
 lowed him. I pulled up at the corner of Church Lane. I saw 
 a young fellow there, but did not take notice of him. The 
 gentleman put the parcels in; there were two parcels and a 
 bag. This gentleman got in after the parcels and told me to 
 go on till he told me to stop. He stopped me in the Com- 
 mercial Road and got out; he came back shortly with a 
 female. They both got in, and he told me to go over London 
 Bridge till he told me to stop; he stopped me at the corner of 
 Southwark Street, in the Borough, got out, took a parcel out, 
 and walked away. I did not see where he went. Two policemen 
 came up and looked in the cab. Afterwards the parcels were 
 put in, the prisoner, the female, and the policemen, and I drove 
 them all to the station. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT I did not know what the 
 charge was when the parcels were put into the cab in White- 
 chapel Road. I was on my box. When they were taken out 
 in the Borough I was standing by my horse's head. 
 
 ALICE DAT, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I live at Alice Day 
 No. 8 Queen's Court, Greenfield Street, Commercial Road. 
 Prior to ilth September last I was in the ballet at the Pavilion 
 Theatre. I had been there for some years. I know Henry 
 Wainwright, and have known him about five years. I first 
 became acquainted with him at the Pavilion Theatre, behind 
 the scenes. I have often been with him to public-houses and 
 to theatres sometimes alone, but oftener with other ballet 
 girls.' I remember llth September last. In the afternoon of 
 that day, about ten minutes to five, I saw Henry Wainwright 
 at the corner of Greenfield Street. He was walking. I did not 
 meet him by appointment. He asked if I would go for a ride 
 with him as far as London Bridge. I replied, "Yes; if he 
 would bring me back by a quarter-past six, as I had then to be 
 
 21
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Alice Day at the theatre " ; and he said he would. We got into a four- 
 wheeled cab, which he had waiting. I noticed that there were 
 some bundles in American leather and a black bag on the front 
 seat. We then drove away and passed over London Bridge. 
 We were not talking as we went along. We did not stop. He 
 gave me a newspaper off the black bag to read. He was smoking 
 a cigar. When he gave me the paper he said, " Don't speak 
 to me, I'm thinking." The cab stopped in the Borough. I 
 did not notice anything peculiar about the parcels. I perceived 
 a smell, but I thought it was the American leather. When 
 the cab stopped he got out and took one of the parcels. He 
 said, " I'm going round the corner with this parcel to a ware- 
 house, and if it's open I will come back for the other." He 
 then went away. After he had gone away, some policemen 
 came up to the cab, and they afterwards took us to the station, 
 and the parcels also, and the black bag. Henry knew where I 
 lived. He had been to see me many times. I knew Thomas, 
 but only for about twelve months. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT The acquaintanceship be- 
 tween myself and Henry Wainwright was an ordinary one. 
 There never was the slightest impropriety between us during 
 the whole of the five years. I earned my living by going to the 
 Pavilion Theatre and by dressmaking. Wainwright' s shop, 
 No. 84, was next to the Pavilion Theatre. In the five years it 
 has happened more than half a dozen times that I have been 
 present with him, with other ballet girls. There were business 
 transactions between the profession and Henry Wainwright. 
 He supplied brushes and mats, and he was in and out of the 
 theatre continually on those occasions. When I and the ballet 
 girls had refreshments with him we were never together more 
 than a quarter of an hour. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Where did you have refresh- 
 ments? In the theatre and outside at the public-house in 
 Baker's Row, near the stage door. 
 
 Gross-examination continued I suppose some of the young 
 ladies were so bold as to ask him for refreshments? Yes, very 
 often. 
 
 But these occasions never occupied more than a quarter of 
 an hour? No. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Either with these girls or when 
 you were alone? Not more. 
 
 Cross-examination continued On llth September I was 
 standing outside the public-house at the corner of Greenfield 
 Street, and could be seen some distance off. The smell was so 
 slight that the American leather seemed to me to account for 
 
 22
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 it. I had not the slightest suspicion of anything being wrong. Alice Day 
 Wainwright was a great favourite with the actors in the theatre, 
 and the proprietors and lessees. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNBY-GENERAL To what theatre 
 had you been with him? Covent Garden. We were alone 
 then. On another occasion I went to the Grecian Theatre, but 
 then I had a young lady from the theatre with me. I forget 
 the other theatre I went to with him; it was not the Pavilion. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What were you doing outside 
 the public-house? I had just left it with one of the people of 
 the theatre. I had not been there a minute. I had only just 
 come out, and was going to cross the road. 
 
 MATTHEW Fox, examined I am an inspector of the Matthew Fox 
 Metropolitan Police. I was on duty on llth September last at 
 Stone's End Police Station, in the Borough. I was there when 
 Henry Wainwright and Alice Day, and the two parcels and a bag 
 arrived. When they were first brought in Constable Turner, 
 addressing me, said, " Mr. Fox, here are a man and woman 
 with two parcels, and I think they are wrong." Not knowing 
 what was in the parcels, I asked the prisoner Henry Wainwright 
 what they contained and where he got them. He replied, " I 
 don't know what they contain ; a gentleman gave them to me to 
 carry." I then took them to the yard adjoining the station, 
 opened them, and saw the contents. I found they contained 
 portions of a body. Alice Day had not then said anything. 
 I sent for the surgeon, Mr. Larkin, and after he had examined 
 them he made a statement to me. I then directed the prisoners 
 to be put into the dock. I said, " I will charge you with having 
 the remains of a female in your possession, believed to have 
 been murdered." I asked him his name and address, and he 
 gave me it as " Henry Wainwright, 78 New Road, Whitechapel." 
 Next he said, " If you send for my friend Mr. Martin at 78 
 New Road, I will tell you in his presence how I became pos- 
 sessed of those parcels." I went myself to Mr. Martin, but he 
 arrived at the station before I got back, not having been at 
 home when I called. Stokes had fetched him. The prisoners 
 were then again placed in the dock, and charged as before. 
 Henry Wainwright then said and I took his statement in 
 writing " Yesterday week, I think, a gentleman, known to 
 me for some time by meeting him at public-houses, asked me 
 if I wished to earn a pound or two. I said, ' Yes, I am 
 always willing to make money,' or something of that sort. He 
 said, ' I can put a sovereign or two in your way.' I then 
 inquired how, and he said, ' By taking two parcels over to the 
 
 23
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Matthew Fox Borough.' I said it was a big price for so small a job. He 
 said, ' Take them over and ask no questions, and here's a 
 couple of sovereigns for you.' I said, ' If you make it five 
 pounds I will take them.' He agreed to make it three pounds, 
 and gave me a key, and told me to take them over to the Hen 
 and Chickens, an empty house in the Borough. He brought 
 them to me, and put them on the pavement, and I brought 
 them over; and that is how I came into possession of them." 
 At that time Stokes was in t*~ station, but the prisoner had 
 not seen him. Alice Day afterwards made a statement in 
 Henry Wainwright's presence, which I took down. [This 
 statement being objected to, it was not pressed by the Attorney- 
 General.] After that I searched Henry Wainwright, and found 
 upon him twenty-seven keys. 
 
 On the same evening I went with Stokes to 215 Whitechapel 
 Road, to the back entrance in Vine Court. Stokes took me 
 there, and pointed out the door, and with one of the keys taken 
 from Henry Wainwright I opened the door. When I got in 
 I saw on the stone-flagged floor a small chopper, wrapped up 
 in a piece of newspaper; a spade, a hammer, and an open 
 pocket knife, a common pocket knife. On the chopper, which 
 
 1 produce, I noticed a deal of matter which smelled strongly 
 similarly to that of the body. This is the spade (produced), a 
 new one. It was covered and marked with lime and clay, and 
 some hairs. 
 
 At the extreme end of the warehouse the floor was raised a 
 few inches higher than the rest ; that was the original construc- 
 tion of the floor. I found some boards loose; I took them up 
 and found that some of the joists had been cut. I was induced 
 to look there by finding the boards loose, and. also by a smell 
 which attracted my attention to the spot. I took up three of 
 the flooring boards, and found that four of the joists upon which 
 they rested had been cut. The joists rested on the earthen floor, 
 they were not fastened to the boards. I saw then that the earth 
 underneath was mixed with chloride of lime. I did no more on 
 that occasion. I put the boards back again, locked the door, 
 put a policeman in charge, and left ; it was then light. 
 
 Next morning, Sunday, the 12th, I went to the place again 
 and made a further examination. I had all the loose earth 
 removed, and found that earth had filled a grave 5 feet long, 
 
 2 feet wide, and 2 feet deep, and I found the mould in that 
 grave to be very largely mixed with chloride of lime. I picked 
 up one lump amongst a number of others as a specimen. I 
 found some hair amongst the earth, and took a specimen of that. 
 It was human hair of a light colour. I have part of it here. 
 
 24
 
 Plan of Whitechapel Road 
 
 (Showing the premises at Nos. 84 and 215 occupied by Henry Wainwri)-lit).
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 I saw the hair that was on the body, and it seemed to be exactly Matthew Fox 
 the same colour. I have some of the hair here which I took 
 from the body (producing it). That portion has been washed 
 since by the surgeon. I noticed that on the flags as you entered 
 by the back door there was a large amount of rubbish on one 
 side and straw on the other. On the part where the straw 
 was it was raised; it had the appearance as if something had 
 been concealed, or as if some person had slept in it, or as if some 
 person had been covered with it. On the other end of the 
 flagged portion was about a cart load of ashes and other rubbish. 
 I had the rubbish cleared away from the stones, and underneath 
 I found red, irregular blotches, which appeared to me to be 
 blood. On the ledges of the stone I found marks as if done 
 with this small axe in chopping. There were cuts or indenta- 
 tions in the stone, and a small part was broken away. It had 
 been recently broken, quite fresh. I found a piece of rope 
 underneath the boards on the grave, on the loose earth. It 
 was an ordinary piece of rope with a loop at the end, which was 
 cut. That was all I noticed at that time. I gave directions 
 to have the place properly searched. I was there about two 
 hours on Sunday morning. Inspector M'Donald and Detectives 
 Forster and Newman were with me. I have two rings which I 
 received from Detective Newman, also two jet buttons which 
 I received from Inspector M'Donald, and two earrings. I have 
 also two jet buttons that I received at the police station from 
 Mrs. Allen in Mrs. Taylor's and John Lane's presence; I have 
 also a pair of boots which I got from a box in Mr. Lane's house at 
 Waltham. I produce a pad which I got from Mr. Larkin ; and 
 also three bullets, one from Mr. Larkin and two from Mr. Bond. 
 I also produce a padlock which I took from the door of the 
 Hen and Chickens by direction of the magistrate, and I produce 
 a key of that padlock which I got from Turner on the night of 
 llth September. I went to the Hen and Chickens and went 
 down to a cellar below. I found a quantity of loose earth there, 
 I should say at least three cart loads, in the inner cellar; that 
 was after I crept through the hole. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET The first words Turner 
 said in Henry Wainwright's presence were, " I think this man 
 and woman have got parcels, something wrong." The parcels 
 were there. It was then that Henry Wainwright said, " I don't 
 know what they contained, a gentleman gave them to me to 
 carry." It was after Mr. Larkin made a communication to me 
 that I asked Wainwright's address, and he gave me his address, 
 " 78 New Road, Whitechapel, where you will find Mr. Martin." 
 I was absent two hours before I came back to the station. I
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Matthew Fox waited at No. 78 to search the premises. Stokes was not at 
 the station before I went to No. 78 ; I found him there when 
 I got back. 
 
 I have a list of the things I found on Henry Wainwright 
 (produced). Among them I found a pocket knife. It was an 
 ordinary pocket knife. I have not said before to-day that 
 my attention was directed to the loose boards by the smell. 
 I was examined three or four times at the Police Court, begin- 
 ning on 13th September and ending on 13th October. I gave 
 my principal evidence as to my visit to 215 Whitechapel Road on 
 13th September. An ordinary constable was placed outside 
 the premises. Newman and Forster were to be in the neigh- 
 bourhood, and to assist in searching. The hair I have produced 
 was found by myself in the grave. I have not shown the stone 
 to any stone mason; I showed the stains on the stones to the 
 doctors after we had cleaned and swept the rubbish off; they 
 had dried up, and were trampled upon, and were then scarcely 
 perceptible. I attended all the examinations both at the Police 
 Court and the inquest. I showed the earrings to Mrs. Taylor, 
 Miss Wilmore, Mrs. Rogers, and to Mrs. Izzard at the last 
 examination before the magistrate; Mrs. Izzard turned out to 
 be the owner of the earrings. They had been shown to the 
 previous persons for the purpose of identifying them as the 
 earrings of Harriet Lane. I was present when M 'Donald found 
 the buttons. I believe the burnt ashes in the grate in the house 
 have been microscopically examined ; I gave Mr. Bond specimens 
 of what I found there. M' Donald searched the ashes. There 
 was only one grate in the house that had the appearance of 
 having had a recent fire in it. 
 
 Have you heard any suggestion made that Henry Wain- 
 wright has made a confession to you? No, I have not. 
 
 Have you seen it so stated in the Weekly Despatch news- 
 paper, or elsewhere? No, I have not. 
 
 There is no truth in any such statement? Oh, no, none 
 whatever. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you mean to say that any such 
 statement has appeared in a newspaper? 
 
 Mr. BESLBT Yes, my lord. I was asked to call your atten- 
 tion to it, but did not think it worth while. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is most improper. 
 
 [Mr. Besley then read a paragraph from the paper referred 
 to, stating that Henry Wainwright had made a confession to 
 the police, from which it appeared that Thomas Wainwright had 
 really committed the murder, and that Henry had out up the 
 body afterwards.] 
 
 26
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a very great pity that any Matthew Fox 
 such statement should be made. 
 
 Mr. BESLEY said the paragraph went on to declare that, owing 
 to these circumstances, a change would be made in the indict- 
 ment, and that Thomas Wainwright would be charged with the 
 murder, while Henry would only be charged as an accessory. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I need hardly say, my lord, that 
 had any statement been made to the police, my learned friend 
 would have been communicated with. 
 
 Mr. BESLET I have no doubt of that. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is very evident that that must 
 not be further circulated. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY The axe is a small one, such 
 as might be used for cutting firewood, a cheap one; there are 
 the trade -marks on it of the person who sold it, and on the 
 spade as well. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL This is the list of 
 the things I found on Henry Wainwright 3 10s. in gold, 
 12s. 8d. in silver, some copper money, a foreign coin, some 
 pawnbrokers' duplicates, twenty-seven keys, a silver watch and 
 metal chain, a tape measure, spectacles and case, a knife, rule, 
 pencil case, two cigars, a pair of eyeglasses, a pocket handker- 
 chief, and a memorandum book. The knife was an ordinary 
 pocket knife. 
 
 There was only one grate that I saw in which there were 
 ashes ; that was on the first floor, in a room that appeared to be 
 used as a kitchen. I don't recollect a grate in the warehouse. 
 I went there first between eight and nine o'clock on llth Sep- 
 tember ; it was very dark then ; I had to procure lights. I did 
 not light the gas; there was no gas there then, the fixtures had 
 been removed. I had police lanterns and candles. A piece of 
 velvet ribbon was handed to me by Mr. Larkin, and I have it 
 here. I got about 2 Ibs. of chloride of lime from the grave; it 
 was in a kind of cake. I could have picked up more; in one 
 part of the grave it was nearly all pure chloride of lime. There 
 are windows at that part of the premises looking into Vine 
 Court, but they were always closed, made up with shutters; 
 when I went there the shutters had every appearance of not 
 having been removed for months, probably years, and were 
 covered \*ith cobweb. 
 
 By Mr. BESLEY The children could not look through the 
 shutters; I could not see any space through which they could 
 look ; I do not think there were any fissures that could be seen 
 through. I have tried myself from the outside and could see 
 none ; there was a policeman there who would not allow them 
 
 27
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Matthew Fox to come there. I am speaking of the windows looking into Vine 
 Court from the flagged part of the warehouse; they are shown 
 on the model. There are two windows looking into Vine Court 
 from the warehouse, the others are from the floor above. The 
 shutters were on the inside, and they had the appearance of 
 having been kept shut for a long time. 
 
 J.Newman JOSEPH NEWMAN (detective officer H), examined After the 
 arrest of Henry Wainwright on llth September I went to No. 
 215 Whitechapel Road. I got there about eight o'clock in the 
 evening. I did not search till Inspector Fox came. I was 
 present when he searched, and I assisted. I found nothing 
 myself on that day. I observed that a board was loose, and 
 Forster and I lifted it up. I went again on the Sunday morning 
 about 12.30; I found nothing then; I saw Mr. Fox find the 
 piece of rope. On the 16th I examined the loose earth, and 
 found this wedding ring in the mould that came from the 
 grave; I put a mark on it, and gave it to Mr. Fox the next day. 
 The mark is on it now. On the 17th I put the mould that oame 
 from the grave through, a second screen, and as I was screening 
 it the keeper ring rolled down. I gave that also to Inspector 
 Fox; I did not mark it, but I know this to be the one. I saw 
 two jet buttons found by Mr. M'Donald on the 17th. On 9th 
 October I was again on the premises, and again searched the 
 mould from the grave, and found a human tooth. On Sunday, 
 10th October, I went again, and then found a kneecap, I mean 
 the bone, and what I believe to be a piece of the scalp, with 
 hair on it. Next day, the llth, I found another tooth. I gave 
 them all to M f Donald. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET I spent a good deal of time 
 there. On the first day we had candles and lanterns. In the 
 daytime it was perfectly light there from the skylight. Some- 
 times children oame round the door and looked through the 
 keyhole and watched us. There were fissures in the shutters, 
 through which they looked when we were at work there. I was 
 present when the earrings were found in the first floor back 
 room, among the ashes, underneath the stove. I understand 
 those ashes have been submitted to microscopic examination. 
 The buttons were found in the ashes down on the floor ; rubbish 
 and vegetable refuse were mixed with the ashes. I call them 
 ashes, as distinguished from the mould in the grave. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There was a sort of rubbish 
 heap where the ashes and other refuse things had been thrown 
 together; that was lying on the raised floor.
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 JAMES CONSTANTLNE M'DONALD, examined I am chief in- j. c. M'Donaid 
 spector of the H division of police. On 16th and 17th Septem 
 ber I went to the premises 215 Whitechapel Road, and searched 
 the ashes that were in the grate there. I found in the ashes 
 two jet buttons, about two yards from the grave. Newman put 
 the ashes through a sand sieve screen, and what did not pass 
 through the screen I turned off with a stick, and in turning it 
 over I found these two buttons. I gave them to Inspector Fox. 
 I noticed that the fasteners were in them, and they appeared 
 as if they had been in the fire ; they were cracked ; the upper 
 part is unbroken. I afterwards searched the upstairs room 
 on the first floor, which is called the kitchen, and I there found 
 two earrings underneath the grate on the hearth, among some 
 ashes. I gave these to Inspector Fox. The ashes appeared to 
 be ashes of wood burning. I found a quantity of small wire in 
 them, as if the backs of brushes had been burnt there. There 
 were a large number of brushes about the place. Some teeth 
 and pieces of bone were given to me by Newman ; I was present 
 when they wer"& found. I gave them to Mr. Bond. They were 
 part of a kneecap, a piece of bone, and two teeth. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET I did not go with Newman 
 on the first night. I went on the Sunday morning. I did not 
 commence the sifting until 16th September. At that time the 
 mould from the grave had been put into a separate and distinct 
 heap, care had been taken to do that. I think the mould was 
 sifted first, and after that the rubbish heap. The rubbish from 
 the different parts of the house was not brought down and 
 sifted also. That was examined casually, and afterwards more 
 strictly. The sample was taken from the grate in which these 
 earrings were found, and I gave it to Inspector Fox. The joists 
 were cut on a slope, but at an angle; they dropped in and stood 
 firmly. One or two of them were cut straighter than the others, 
 and the others were out a little on a slant. I can produce them 
 if necessary. They were cut at each end. Each joist would 
 require two sawings to get out the piece ; I examined the boards 
 that were over this part ; they were not very clean. They were 
 the same colour as the rest of the floor. I examined to see if 
 there were any nail marks, and there were ; and the nails were in 
 the boards that were taken up from the flooring which rested on 
 the joists. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL The boards had 
 been nailed to the joists, in my opinion ; I found four nails in 
 the boards. The boards ran lengthways exactly across the paint 
 room at the extreme end of the warehouse. The boards ran 
 across in the direction from the front of the paint shop to the
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 J. C. M'Donald back wall, lengthways of the warehouse. They were laid on the 
 ground, and the boards ran from side to side in the room. 
 The joists appeared to have been cut for the purpose of enabling 
 the ground to be removed. The excavation in the ground could 
 not have been made without removing the joists. It could not 
 have been excavated with an ordinary shovel. It was only to 
 the extent to which it had been excavated that the joists had 
 been removed. 
 
 Edwin Allen EDWIN ALLEN, examined by Mr. BBASLHT I married a 
 daughter of John Lane, father of the deceased. On the 20th 
 September last I was at Mr. Lane's house, Jessamine Cottage, 
 Waltham Cross. I saw a stay-box (produced) there opened by 
 Mrs. Lane. It contained a variety of buttons, and amongst 
 them some jet buttons. I took possession of two, and brought 
 them to London, and gave them to Mrs. Taylor. They were 
 on a blue card, and I know that those produced are the same. 
 They were on the card when in the stay-box. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (examining them) They are just like 
 the others, as the jury will see. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT objected that the box had not been identified. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs. Lane should have been called 
 first. At present we do not know whose stay-box it was, and 
 therefore, gentlemen of the jury, the buttons must be put aside 
 for the present. 
 
 Examination continued Mrs. Lane handed me a parcel of 
 papers, and amongst them I found five envelopes. The one now 
 put into my hand is one of them. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It would have been better to have 
 called Mrs. Lane first. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I may as well say at once I shall not 
 be able to call Mrs. Lane. Her health will not permit it. We 
 must prove what is wanted in some other way. 
 
 Examination continued In one of the envelopes there was a 
 letter, but I did not see it then j I only became aware of it 
 afterwards. I handed them to Mrs. Taylor. 
 
 Ellen Wilmore ELLEN WILMORE, examined by Mr. POLAND I am unmarried, 
 and live at 36 Maryland Street, Stratford. I am a milliner and 
 dressmaker. I knew Harriet Louisa Lane as a milliner. She 
 was apprenticed with me in 1866 to a Mrs. Bray, Waltham 
 Cross. She left Mrs. Bray on two occasions; on the first occa- 
 sion she stayed about two years, and on the second the same. 
 I do not remember her coming to live in London. I know the 
 prisoner Henry Wainwright. I first knew him in 1872 by the 
 30 '
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 name of Percy King. I first met him at Temple Bar. Harriet Ellen Wilmore 
 
 Lane, whom I then knew as Mrs. King, was with him. I 
 
 believe she was at that time living near Bedford Square. I 
 
 knew her afterwards to be living in St. Peter Street, Mile End 
 
 Road. She had a child born there in August, 1872. She was 
 
 at that time living there as Mrs. King. I did not then know 
 
 who Percy King was, but I afterwards knew him as Mr. Wain- 
 
 wright, a brushmaker, of 84 Whitechapel Road. 
 
 Did you take charge of her first child? I did, at Mr. Wain- 
 wright's request. When I met him at Temple Bar he told me to 
 take the baby and he would pay me 1 a week to keep the child, 
 and I had it in my charge, and I was to pay the doctor. I had 
 had the child three weeks at that time, and had received 12s. 
 first. It was a very delicate child. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What reason was given why 
 you should take charge of the child? There was no reason 
 whatever given. 
 
 Examination continued The child was three months old 
 when I first took it. I had it three weeks before he spoke to me 
 about it. Henry Wainwright paid me then as Mr. King 1, 
 sometimes once a month, sometimes once in six weeks. I kept 
 the child until the following Christmas. A second child was 
 born on 3rd December, 1873, at 70 St. Peter Street, at Mrs. 
 Wells' s, not at the same place as the first. I took the first child 
 to Mrs. King after the second one was born, as she wrote and 
 asked me to do so, and she had them both with her at Mrs. 
 Wells's, 70 St. Peter Street. She lived there, I think, till 
 May, 1874, but I don't quite remember. I used to visit her 
 there sometimes as Mrs. King. At that time I knew who Percy 
 King was. From 70 St. Peter Street she went to live at 3 
 Sidney Square, at Mrs. Foster's. She lived there, too, as Mrs. 
 King. I visited her there several times, generally on Sundays. 
 She had there the two children, and likely a monthly nurse. 
 Some time after I went there first she wrote me on 3rd August, 
 1874. I went to get the children, and I lived there for some 
 time. She wanted me to take the two children, but as I did 
 not see Wainwright to make any arrangement, I did not take 
 them. I slept and lived there from 3rd August to llth Sep- 
 tember. The nurse left her before I went there, and we had a 
 little servant. I never saw Percy King there once. Only one 
 person visited her there a gentleman named Edward Frieake. 
 I saw him only once for about half a moment. I knew his name 
 because Mrs. Foster opened the door of the sitting 1 - room and 
 announced him to Mrs. King as Mr. Frieake. I passed out as 
 he came into the room. 
 
 31
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Ellen Wilmore Can you say when this was? How many days before llth 
 September? I cannot remember how long before. It must have 
 been the beginning of September or the end of August; but I 
 cannot remember exactly. 
 
 Can you describe him at all? He was not a tall man, with 
 rather a slight moustache, and he walked rather quick. He did 
 not stay long. It was in the evening when he came. 
 
 You have seen the two prisoners, one being the person you 
 know as Percy King or Henry Wainwright. Do you think that 
 either of them was the person? No; I am not sure. I have 
 seen the other prisoner somewhere, but I cannot say where. It 
 may have been by passing him in the street. 
 
 You mean before you saw him at the Police Court? Yes. I 
 have seen him before, but I don't know where. I cannot remem- 
 ber. It was arranged with Mrs. King while she was at Sidney 
 Square that I should take charge of the children, and that Mr. 
 King should pay me 5 a month. 
 
 Mr. BESLEY objected that unless this could be brought home 
 to Henry Wainwright it could not be evidence. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL We shall show you that he did 
 afterwards actually pay the witness. 
 
 Examination continued I took lodgings at No. 6 The Grove, 
 Stratford. Before llth September, 1874, Mrs. King was in bad 
 circumstances. She had pawned some of her things several 
 times. Amongst other things, she used to wear a wedding ring 
 and keeper, and she was not wearing them when I went to 
 Sidney Square. They were in pledge. On llth September I 
 took them out of pledge from Mr. Dickers, a pawnbroker in the 
 Commercial Road. She gave me the tickets, and I took them 
 and got them out of pawn. One was in for 10s., and the other 
 for 8s. or 9s. I forget which. I lent her the money to get them 
 out. I lent her 2 altogether. She had a lot of money, but 
 she had a lot of bills to pay, and not enough to get her wedding 
 ring out. I had received 5 in advance from Mr. King for 
 one month's keep of the two children. I took several things 
 out of pawn that day, to the amount of 3, but not all from 
 Dickers linen and dresses, nearly everything she possessed. I 
 gave them to Mrs. King. 
 
 Look at those two rings (a wedding ring and keeper). Do 
 you recognise them? Her rings were very much like these, but 
 I cannot swear these are them. I remember that the wedding 
 ring was larger than the keeper. These are the same. When 
 I gave her the two rings, she put them on, and went away with 
 them. 
 
 Before llth September do you remember any disturbance 
 
 32
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 taking place in Sidney Square? Yes; one night, four or five Ellen Wilmore 
 
 days from the beginning of September, I remember there was a 
 
 very loud knocking at the door. It was late in the evening 
 
 about half-past nine or ten o'clock, I cannot say exactly, but I 
 
 remember it was a very loud knocking at the door, and Mrs. 
 
 Foster came up and asked me to go downstairs at once. In 
 
 consequence of that I went downstairs to the front door, and 
 
 when I got there I saw Mrs. King alone. She was intoxicated 
 
 and excited. I got her in as quickly as I could, and she came 
 
 in on the instant and remained indoors, and I was up with her 
 
 all night. 
 
 Did you see any one else in the street at the time? I did 
 not. I looked, but I could see no one. Mrs. Foster came up 
 the next morning to give her notice to leave in consequence of 
 what had taken place overnight. 
 
 When was she to leave ? She was to have left on the Wed- 
 nesday, 9th September, but she stayed on for two days longer, 
 to the llth. I assisted her to pack up her boxes. She gave me 
 the keys first. When the boxes were all packed and the things 
 were taken out of pawn, she left her lodgings at 3 -Sidney Square 
 on Friday, llth September, 1874, at four o'clock in the after- 
 noon. On the same day that I got the rings out of pawn she 
 dressed herself in some of her best things. 
 
 Did she take anything with her ? Only a small parcel, which 
 contained, I think, a nightdress only. She had also a new 
 umbrella. She wore a grey dress, with a black bonnet, and a 
 black cape trimmed with lace and velvet. Down the front of 
 her dress were jet buttons, and no other trimming. 
 
 Do you know who put the buttons on the dress? She put 
 them on herself that morning. The buttons were bought in 
 the Commercial Road. A few of them were left over, and I put 
 them in this card stay-box (produced), which was on the table. 
 I can swear to it. When the luggage was packed I put it into 
 her big box the box in Court. The buttons were on a card, a 
 white card, I believe. They were large buttons, but I do not 
 remember the pattern about this size (two buttons produced). 
 She always wore her hair done up at the back, with a large pad. 
 She used a great number of hairpins, and her hair was frizzed 
 over the pad. The pad was bought in the Hackney Road, but 
 I do not know exactly the shop. 
 
 How did she fasten her hair ? With a band of black velvet. 
 (The pad was here produced and handed to the witness.) 
 
 What do you say to that ? It is very much like the one she 
 wore. It is the same colour. 
 
 Have you seen this velvet (produced)? Yes. She usually 
 
 r> 33
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Ellen Wilmore wore a band of velvet about the same width, but I do not know 
 whether she wore it on that occasion. 
 
 [Mr. Poland said he proposed to ask the witness whether 
 Harriet Lane made any communication to her when she left. 
 The question was objected to.] 
 
 Examination continued When she left her lodgings on that 
 day, did she make some statement to you ? Yes, she did. 
 
 Did she take leave of her children ? Yes, most affectionately. 
 She said " Good-bye " to me, and appeared to be in very good 
 health and spirits. 
 
 The same evening did you leave tlie lodgings? I did, at about 
 half -past six or seven o'clock, when I went to No. 6 The Grove, 
 Stratford. I took with me the two children and Mrs. King's 
 luggage, which I was to keep until called for. There were 
 several letters among her luggage. I did not see her on Satur- 
 day, Sunday, or Monday. I went to Harriet Lane's lodgings, 
 but neither saw nor heard anything of her until Tuesday, the 
 15th. I then went to Henry Wainwright's premises, a brush- 
 maker's shop, 84 Whitechapel Road. I had been there only 
 once before, and then had not seen him. I sent a note in with 
 a little boy to him, and in about ten minutes he met me a 
 short distance from the house, at the corner of New Road. I 
 said, " Where is Mrs. King," and he said he had sent her 
 down to Brighton on Saturday morning. I was greatly 
 astonished, and said, "Dear me! and she has not got any 
 clothes? " "I gave her money to buy clothes," he said, and 
 I replied, " Oh, did you? Can I send her any clothes? " He 
 said I should probably hear from her in a day or two. I then 
 requested the 2 which I had lent Mrs. King, 1 to take her 
 rings out of pawn, some money for the laundress, and 7s. to pay 
 for a dress that had been dyed. He gave me the 2, and bade 
 me good-morning. I went away. I had baby with me. On 
 the following Thursday, the 17th, hearing nothing, I could not 
 rest any longer, and I wrote to Mrs. Taylor, Harriet Lane's 
 sister, who was in the country. I saw her four days afterwards 
 at my lodgings in Stratford Grove. We went together to 84 
 Whitechapel Road, and there in the shop we saw Henry Wain- 
 wright. I introduced Mrs. Taylor as Harriet Lane's sister, and 
 he said, " Oh, is it? How like you look." She explained 
 that she had come to inquire about her sister, where she was. 
 He said she had gone to Brighton, he had not heard from her, 
 and that he would get her address as soon as he possibly could. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did he on either day say that 
 he had seen her ? He did not ; only that he had sent her to 
 Brighton on Saturday morning. 
 
 34
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Examination continued A few days afterwards I was alone, Ellen Wilmore 
 and saw him again at the door of No. 84. I said, " I have not 
 heard from Mrs. King yet." He replied, " I have. She has gone 
 off with my friend Frieake." I did not know he had a friend 
 called Frieake. I think he said that this person was an auc- 
 tioneer who had come into a large property. Nothing was said 
 as to what Mr. Frieake was or where he lived. I was too 
 astonished to say anything more. I afterwards received by post 
 a letter from the Charing Cross Hotel. I had not received a 
 previous one mentioned in it. It came in an envelope to my 
 address, No. 6 The Grove, Stratford. Wainwright never asked 
 my address, because he knew it; Mrs. King had told him I was 
 going there. I received this letter about three weeks after the 
 disappearance of Harriet Lane, that is, after llth September. 
 I afterwards gave up the letter with the envelope to Mrs. Taylor, 
 and I don't know what has become of it. I took it to Mr. Wain- 
 wright's, at 84 Whitechapel Road, the next morning after 
 receiving it late at night. I said to him, " I have just received 
 this letter, sir," and I put it into his hand, and he read it. He 
 said, " I have one very much like it," and then he fetched a 
 letter out of his desk. I saw it in his hand, and the writing 
 was very much like in appearance to what I had had. I was 
 near enough to see the writing, but I did not take much notice. 
 He read a portion of it, which stated he had got the lady under 
 his protection, and said, " I dare you or any one else to inter- 
 fere, as I intend to marry her." I don't remember all he read. 
 He gave me my letter back, and kept his own. When the letter 
 was first shown to him we were alone. I then took the letter 
 straight to Mrs. Taylor. I cannot say Wainwright read the 
 letter, but he appeared to. [Letter read, " Charing Cross Hotel. 
 Dear Miss Wilmore, I am very much surprised at not receiving 
 a, reply to my last letter, in which I gave you all particulars of 
 our arrangements. She is now quite content, and has solemnly 
 promised not to speak to King or any of his friends and family 
 again, as, if she did, I have told her we should have to part. 
 If her promise is kept, I intend to marry her in a few weeks. 
 I distinctly tell her that I will not allow her to see any of her 
 old acquaintances, as it will only cause unpleasantness. With 
 kind regards. Yours truly, E. Frieake. We are just off to 
 Dover."] 
 
 Are you quite sure you received no letter before that? I am 
 quite sure. I went straight to Mrs. Taylor and read it to her, 
 and at once we both went to Waltham to see the father and 
 mother. We returned together, and a few days afterwards I 
 received a telegram at my lodgings, 6 The Grove, in one of the 
 
 35
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 ElldnWilmore ordinary envelopes. I read it, and the next day Mrs. Taylor 
 came to see it, and I read it to her. The next day, or the day 
 following, Mrs. Taylor and I went to Henry Wainwright's, at 
 84 Whitechapel Road. I took the telegram with us. I showed 
 him the telegram, and he read it. I said when I showed it to 
 him, " I've received a telegram from Mr. Frieake from Dover." 
 He did not say anything, but went to his desk and fetched a 
 telegram like it, and read it to Mrs. Taylor and myself. I 
 cannot say what were the exact words, or even the substance, but 
 he read it to Mrs. Taylor, and I left her. I saw the telegram 
 in his hand. He came out with us and asked us to have a glass 
 of wine each, and we had it, and that was all that passed that 
 day. Before I left my lodgings I had 5 in advance for a month, 
 and when the month expired I went again. The first 5 was 
 paid after the telegram. He then paid me another 5 for the 
 next month in advance for the children. I asked if he had heard 
 of Mrs. King, and he said he had not heard. He continued to pay 
 the 5 in advance every month up to June, 1875. During all 
 this while I was keeping the boxes of Mrs. King. I kept them up 
 to January. Before giving them up the boxes were examined at 
 my lodgings by Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Eeles, who passed as 
 Fowler. There were several letters in them. She always left 
 her letters in my charge. They were in another box. After 
 the things had been examined they were all put back, and the 
 boxes corded. I would not give them up till I received this 
 letter from Percy King (letter produced) " 21st January, 1875. 
 I am quite willing that Mrs. King's boxes shall be given up to 
 her father on your receiving a guarantee in writing exonerating 
 you from all responsibility connected with them. Percy King." 
 " 28th January, 1875. Miss Wilmore, I hereby, with full in- 
 structions from Mr. Lane, of Jessamine Cottage, Waltham, 
 Essex, exonerate you from any responsibility connected with the 
 box and portmanteau and the property of Mrs. King, or Harriet 
 Lane, and the articles contained in them as seen by Mrs. Taylor 
 and yourself. Witness my mark, R. Fowler." I cannot swear 
 this " Percy King " is his writing, but it is the writing he 
 always wrote to me. I had spoken to him about giving up the 
 boxes, and he said I had better give them up. I said, " Please 
 send me a paper to do so," and he afterwards sent me an 
 authority by Mr. Eeles. Mr. Fowler and a young man took the 
 box, portmanteau, and bonnet box away to be given to the father. 
 That was in January about the 21st, as far as I can recollect. 
 
 How long did Wainwright continue further payments to you? 
 He continued 5 a month payment up to June, and then he 
 did not pay regularly. I do not think he had it. I saw him 
 
 36
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 several times about the money. Sometimes he gave me 5s., Ellen Wilmore 
 
 sometimes 3s., sometimes 2s., at different times. I always 
 
 asked whether he had heard of Mrs. King, and he said he had 
 
 seen her on several occasions, and at different places, which he 
 
 told me at the time, but I have forgotten them. He told me 
 
 also that other persons had seen her at different times half a 
 
 dozen at least. I think he said one of his workmen, his porter 
 
 or his foreman, was the person who had seen her. I agreed to 
 
 take less money. He said he did not wish me to, and said he 
 
 would pay me some time. I said, " If you cannot afford to pay 
 
 me 25s. a week, I will take 20s." He said he did not wish 
 
 that. I said I would rather do that than part with the children. 
 
 He paid me small sums then at irregular times, and in small 
 
 amounts, before September of this year. He did not send them 
 
 to me ; I went to see him. 
 
 Did you call and get any money? I called, but I was not 
 able to get any. I was not able to get any the last six weeks 
 before llth September last. I agreed to take a little weekly; 
 I did not say how much, and I did not make any agreement. 
 In September last I wrote to him while he was at Mr. Martin's. 
 I gave the letter to Mr. Martin's foreman, addressed " Henry 
 Wainwright, Esq." I received a reply on Friday, 10th Sep- 
 tember, at mid-day. I was then living at 36 Maryland Street, 
 Stratford. This does not look like his general writing, but I 
 have letters something like it. I believe it is his. [Letter read. 
 " I have told you I can do nothing for you till November, I 
 will then do as I have said; but if you give me all this annoy- 
 ance by calling and leaving letters, I shall then do nothing for 
 you. You can make your choice. Your stupid threats are 
 quite absurd about it's being too late. I can see you at seven 
 o'clock if you like, at the back of the hospital. Miss Wihnore, 
 Maryland Street, Stratford." Postmark, 10.45.] When we 
 met that night I do not recollect that he said anything about 
 my letter; he was most gentlemanly and most kind. In conse- 
 quence of that letter I met him at the back of the London Hos- 
 pital. The arrangement was seven o'clock, but he was not there 
 till nearly eight. I said, " I received your letter, and I think 
 it better that we arrange something at once." He gave me 5s., 
 and said he would give me 5s. a week till November, and that he 
 would send me 2 or 3 by mid-day on the next day, Saturday, 
 without fail. 
 
 Next day you received no money ? No ; I heard nothing the 
 next day, and the next I heard was on Monday evening at six 
 o'clock that he was in custody. Sergeant Cox came to me, and I 
 went to St. Saviour's dead-house, where I saw the body. I saw 
 
 37
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Ellen Wilmore a little of the hair, which was light auburn ; that was the colour 
 of Harriet Lane's. 
 
 From what you saw of the remains, did you form any positive 
 opinion as to whose body it was? I thought from the height 
 and the size it was very like Harriet Lane's. In my own belief, 
 I think it was her. 
 
 Did you notice her hands and feet? Yes, they were like 
 hers very small. 
 
 Did you see a tooth? She had a tooth decayed, and only 
 one, in the upper jaw, next the eye tooth ; but I cannot remember 
 on which side it was. It showed when she laughed or talked. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Can you not remember, when 
 she looked at you and smiled, on which side of the face it was? 
 No, I cannot remember ; I have tried, but I cannot. There were 
 several teeth out of the jaw of the body I saw, but I did not 
 notice any one in particular. 
 
 Examination continued Had she any marks on her body ? 
 She had a scar on her right knee about 4 inches below the 
 knee, on the right side. That was from a burn. I had seen it 
 very often. I saw it the day before she left Sidney Square. One 
 side was very white, and the other side was drawn, like burns 
 generally are. It was about the size of a florin. These (pro- 
 duced) are her boots ; I sent them home in her box to her father. 
 She was in the habit of wearing earrings, and her ears were 
 pierced. 
 
 Did you ever give up any letters of Mrs. King to Mr. Wain- 
 wright? I gave him up a few. He asked me particularly for 
 them about 23rd April last. 
 
 What did he say about them? He only asked me if I would 
 give them up to him, and I gave him a few. I think I asked 
 whether I was to give everything up, her letters and all, and he 
 said, " No, you had better let me have them," but I would not 
 give him all. I ga,ve him a few, but she had told me never to 
 give them up. She wished me not ; she was going to burn them, 
 but she said, " You take charge of them; I don't want my 
 father and mother to see them." 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET Before I had any child to 
 take care of I knew that Harriet Lane had left her father and 
 come up to London. I used to go and see her. 
 
 Until 3rd August, 1874, you never lived under the same roof 
 with Harriet Lane? I did not. 
 
 In what year was it you first found her living in London ? 
 The year that the first child was born, 187 J. I found her living 
 in lodgings. I left Waltham Abbey and lost sight of her for 
 three months. I first saw her in London when I was living at
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Chelsea; she was at the Green Dragoji, in Bi&hopsgate Street. Ellen Wilmore 
 That was six or seven months before the birth of the first child, 
 and she then told me she was married, and I was under that 
 belief until just before the first child was born. She was then 
 passing by the name of Mrs. King. 
 
 You never saw Mr. King, otherwise Henry Wainwright, until 
 after the child was born, and had come to live with you? I did 
 not. It was three months old when I first saw Henry Wain- 
 wright. When I had the first child I lived in Buckingham Road, 
 Pimlico. Harriet Lane did not pay me when I had the first 
 child; Mr. King paid me. He used to bring'the money himself. 
 I always addressed him as Mr. King. The first child was with 
 me nearly up to 3rd December, 1873, rather more than twelve 
 months. I was not present when the second child was born, 
 but I saw Mrs. King at Christmas at Mrs. Wells's, 70 St. Peter 
 Street. I had a letter from her on 3rd August, when I went 
 to Sidney Square, Mrs. Foster's. The beginning of the arrange- 
 ment about my having the children was by that letter, and I 
 went there instantly, and slept under the same roof with her till 
 7th September. I met Mr. King with her at the back of the 
 hospital about 4th August. She told me she would bring him 
 there, and then I, or Mrs. King, told him what the plans were, 
 and got his sanction. He asked me whether, if he furnished a 
 house, I would live with Mrs. King. I told him, " No, but that 
 I would take the children." He said, " Very well." That was 
 all that passed. 
 
 By Mr. POLAND On some occasion, between 3rd August and 
 llth September, a person came whom Mrs. King announced by 
 name? Yes, Mr. Frieake. He was very young-looking, and 
 very nicely dressed and gentlemanly. He had a pale complexion 
 and a light moustache. I should call him rather fair. I do not 
 think he had light hair. 
 
 Cross-examination continued You say that Mr. Wainwright, 
 when you were calling for the money, usually said either that 
 he had seen her himself, or that some one else had seen her? 
 Yes. 
 
 Are you aware that you did not say before the magistrate 
 that Wainwright had ever said he had seen her himself? No; 
 I don't know whether I did or not. 
 
 Have you not said to him on many occasions, after February, 
 1875, " I could almost swear I saw her " ? I said that I thought 
 I saw her in a cab. That was about six weeks after llth 
 September. I was walking near the Bank with one of the 
 children, so I could not follow her. It was very cold weather, 
 just before Christmas, I think. I was always on the lookout
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Ellen Wilmore for her. I saw a hansom cab and a lady and gentleman in it, 
 the colour of the lady's hair being an uncommon colour, like 
 Harriet Lane's. I never saw Henry Wainwright at Sidney 
 Square, but he called several times at St. Peter Street, and 
 remained a short time. 
 
 You spoke of seeing Mrs. King on llth September, 1874, 
 with some money? Yes. 
 
 Did you see who gave it to her? No. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you know how much it was ? 
 I don't know. She gave me 5 out of it. I should think it 
 must have been 15 nearly. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Her wedding ring was larger 
 than the keeper, which is generally the case. 
 
 Are the buttons the police have shown you buttons of the 
 same kind? Yes. 
 
 You spoke of Mrs. King's cape and dress being trimmed only 
 with buttons. Were several dozens used? Yes; quite two 
 dozen. 
 
 You never dressed Mrs. King's hair? No, but I watched 
 her dress it from 4th August to llth September, 1874. I had 
 sent on the letter to Mr. Martin's, and I had written to him 
 before. I had expressed a wish to keep the children, but had 
 talked of applying to the relieving officer; that was the only 
 threat I used. I thought he might spare something for the 
 children. I think he was in difficulties, or he would have paid 
 me. He fixed November as the time when he would pay me. 
 When I suggested reducing the amount from 25s. to 20s. he 
 did not wish it. 
 
 On the first occasion before the magistrate did you not say 
 Harriet Lane had gone to Brighton, and not that he had sent 
 her? I might have said that. 
 
 Did you not say, "She has gone down to Brighton"? I 
 said, " How very strange; she has no clothes." I am not 
 certain. 
 
 By the LORD CHEEP JUSTICE Which did you say? I might 
 have said either. 
 
 Cross-examination continued With your recollection, can 
 you speak positively? No. I think there was a slight projec- 
 tion of the upper lip. She had very beautiful teeth. They did 
 project slightly, but not enough to disfigure the mouth. Her 
 mouth was large, but a nice shape. 
 
 The doctors were correct in saying that the remains were 
 quite unrecognisable? They were. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL Were the teeth in 
 
 40
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 the upper jaw or the lower jaw which projected slightly? In the Ellen Wilmorc 
 upper jaw very slightly. 
 
 Was the cab you spoke of driving rapidly or slowly? At 
 first very slowly, and afterwards quickly. The traffic stopped 
 it. The telegram I received on 17th October I gave to Mrs. 
 Taylor and Mr. Eeles. They have lost it. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What was Mrs. King's manner 
 towards her children? Did it lead you to think she was fond 
 of them or not? She was very fond of them, more especially 
 of the younger one, very fond indeed. 
 
 From the time she disappeared until this time, has any one, 
 indirectly or directly, made any inquiry about these children? 
 No one except the aunt. I have still got the children. 
 
 HENBY POLLARD, examined I am one of the clerks in the H. Pollard 
 office of the Solicitor to the Treasury. I served two notices to 
 produce a letter, upon the prisoners in Newgate, the first on 
 23rd October, 1875, and the second on 23rd November, 1875. 
 These (produced) are copies of the notices. 
 
 Mrs. ELIZABETH TAYLOR, examined by the ATTORNEY- Mrs. Taylor 
 GENERAL I am the wife of William Taylor, coachman, residing 
 at 7 Clarendon Mews, Hyde Park, daughter of John Lane, of 
 Waltham, who is employed in the gunpowder works there, 
 and sister of Harriet Louisa Lane. I have several other sisters, 
 Mrs. Allen being one of them. Before my sister Harriet lived 
 with Mrs. Foster she resided in different other places in London, 
 passing always as Mrs. King. I knew she had two children. 
 Before she went to Sidney Square to Mrs. Foster's she occasion- 
 ally came to see me and my husband. I went to see her more 
 than once when she was living at Mrs. Foster's. I found she 
 was living there as Mrs. King with her children. The last time 
 I went to see her when she was living in Sidney Square was in 
 the second week in August. On llth September, or about 
 that time, I was in Weymouth with my husband. On my return 
 I found a letter from Miss Wilmore, who, I knew, was a friend 
 of my sister. In consequence of that letter I went with Miss 
 Wilmore and saw Henry Wainwright at his place of business. 
 I said to him I had come upon a very unpleasant affair concern- 
 ing the missing of my sister. I also said, " I am her sister, 
 and that you can see." He replied, "Oh, yes! No doubt of 
 that." He said he did not know where my sister was; and 
 that he gave her 15 the day before she left Sidney Square, and 
 that he had also given her 10 to provide an outfit to go to 
 Brighton. He remarked that he had seen her on that occasion 
 
 41
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs. Taylor in his shop in Whitechapel, and he said, on the first occasion, 
 that she was gone away with ooie Teddy Frieake, who had come 
 in for a large fortune, and he thought she had gone with this 
 Teddy Frieake to the Pavilion Theatre, that he waited in his 
 shop until ten o'clock, but she did not return. Several weeks 
 after this I received a letter from Mr. Wainwright. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You knew him as Mr. King? 
 Yes, although when I came to talk to him in the shop I knew 
 he was Mr. Wainwright. 
 
 Examination continued I and Miss Wilmore subsequently, 
 in consequence of a letter I received, visited Mr. Wainwright 
 again. He said he knew nothing of my sister, but that his 
 foreman had seen her in a cab. He read me a letter and a tele- 
 gram. He kept the letter in his hand, and read it out. The 
 letter, as far as I can recollect, was as follows : - ' ' I have the 
 lady now under my protection, and I dare you or any one else 
 to annoy her in any way." He also read the telegram, which 
 said, " We are now off to Paris, and mean to have a jolly spree." 
 Wainwright said the telegram came from Dover, and, I think, 
 from Teddy Frieake. The third time I saw him was in the latter 
 part of October or beginning of November. I saw him at his 
 place of business. He gave me a little brandy and water. I 
 asked him about my sister, and he said she was all right and 
 enjoying her luxuries, and that when they had their frolic out, 
 he supposed they would return. I never saw him again, and 
 never heard any tidings of my sister. It was I who got Mr. 
 Eeles to make inquiry. He was a friend of mine. My sister, 
 I think, was twenty-four. She was not so tall as I am, and 
 was of very slight build. Her hands and feet were very small, 
 and her fingers very long, and she had a nice quantity of very 
 light hair, rather bright. She had a decayed tooth in the upper 
 jaw on the right-hand side. It was next the eye tooth, and 
 rather observable when she talked or smiled. She had a very 
 nice set of teeth. She had a scar on her leg, just below the 
 knee, about the size of a florin; she had had an accident a 
 burn. She was in the habit of wearing a wedding ring and a 
 keeper. I went to St. Saviour's dead-house and saw the remains. 
 The hair was very much like my sister's; so were the feet and 
 hands. She used to wear a pad and hairpins over it to fasten 
 it, a kind of frizzette. I have had a pad shown to me which is 
 similar to that she wore. I have seen her with her children. 
 She appeared to be very fond indeed of them. I was in frequent 
 communication with her; she used to write to me. Mr. Allen, 
 my brother-in-law, gave me five envelopes ; one had a letter in 
 it this (produced) is it. I gave it to Detective Forster. It 
 
 42
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 is my sister's writing. Some time in October Miss Wihnore Mrs. Taylor 
 
 showed me a telegram. I went to her place, The Grove, 
 
 Stratford, with Mr. Eeles to fetch it. I gave it to Mr. Eeles, 
 
 and have not seen it since. I am quite confident I never had it 
 
 back from Mr. Eeles. Mr. Allen brought me two buttons on a 
 
 card, just as you get them from a draper. My husband gave 
 
 them to Inspector Fox in my presence. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBY At the first interview I had 
 with Henry Wainwright I was accompanied by Miss Wihnore. 
 I said to him, "Can you tell me where my sister is?" He 
 said, " I cannot tell you where she is; I only wish I could." 
 He also said, " The day before your sister was missing I gave 
 her 15, and she said she was going to Brighton." He also 
 said he gave her 10 for an outfit before she went. It was 
 at that same interview that he spoke of having waited at the 
 shop till ten o'clock, expecting her to return from the Pavilion 
 Theatre, and that he had never seen her from that time. It 
 was at the second interview that he told me some one had seen 
 my sister in a cab, and at the third interview he said he should 
 not continue to do as he had done for the children, and when 
 the first child was old enough he would give it an education. 
 The children are both girls. On the .same occasion Wainwright 
 said, " Should she return, I shall not take her back. Can you 
 blame me? " I said, " Certainly not, under the circumstances." 
 All the three interviews with Wainwright took place at 84 
 Whitechapel Road. When he referred to the letter, he held it 
 in his hand. I did not see in whose writing the letter was which 
 Wainwright produced. I am not certain whether I was the first 
 of my family to see the remains; my father and my husband 
 went with me. 
 
 Until you were examined as a witness, had your attention 
 been called to the length of the feet? Yes. Both I and my 
 father, who saw the remains together, noticed that before we 
 gave any evidence, and the same with regard to % the hands. 
 
 At the time you said all the parts were like, but your 
 attention was not then called to the decayed tooth? Yes, it 
 was. I saw that several of the teeth were missing then. No 
 one opened the mouth to show us the teth. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Had you thought beforehand 
 of the particular points to which you would direct your attention 
 when you saw the remains? Yes. I thought I should recog- 
 nise her by her hair, for one thing; by the decayed tooth,' and 
 by her hands and feet. 
 
 What were the peculiarities of the hands and feet? The 
 feet and hands were very slight, and she had long finger*. 
 
 43
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs. Taylor Did you find these things in the remains that you examined ? 
 Yes, I think I did, as near as I could see. 
 
 The mark of the burn did not occur to you at that first 
 examination? No, it did not at that time. 
 
 By Mr. BESLBY As a matter of fact, had your sister two 
 marks, one on each leg? No, only one. I am quite positive 
 she had not two. 
 
 With regard to the five envelopes you received from your 
 brother-in-law, Mr. Allen, and gave to Detective Forster, did 
 you notice the envelope from which you took the letter? Yes, I 
 took the letter out and put it back again in the same envelope. 
 The whole of the five appear to be in the same handwriting. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL This is the envelope 
 directed to my sister. Although my sister was brought up as a 
 dressmaker, she was at one time a governess. She had had some 
 education; she was a very good scholar. When I said some 
 teeth were absent, I meant absent from the jaw of the body 
 shown me, not that my sister had lost any teeth. I remember 
 my father, when before the magistrate, speaking about a scar, 
 and it was not until after I had given my evidence. I did not 
 recollect till it was drawn to my attention. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have, I suppose, no know- 
 ledge of the handwriting on these envelopes? No. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Perhaps it would be as well to 
 prove the handwriting at once, as I am in a position to do so. 
 
 G. W. Rogers GEORGE WILLIAM ROGERS, examined I am now in the service 
 of Messrs. Hounsell Brothers, in the Minories. I was formerly 
 employed by Mr. Henry Wainwright. I have seen him write, 
 and I know his handwriting well. I also know the handwriting 
 of Thomas Wainwright. (The several letters introduced into 
 the case letters marked B and I, and the envelopes which 
 contained I were here handed to the witness, and stated by 
 him to be in the handwriting of the prisoner, Henry Wainwright ; 
 also all these envelopes and the signature to the letter marked G, 
 dated 21st January, 1875 not the body of the letter; also 
 envelope and letter marked F, addressed to Miss Wilmore, 26 
 Maryland Street, Stratford.) There is no date to this one of 
 15th or 16th February, 1874, but both letter and envelope are 
 Henry Wainwright' s writing. The letter marked E, headed 
 " Charing Cross Hotel," to the best of my belief is in Thomas 
 Wainwright's handwriting. 
 
 (Mr. Besley and Mr. Moody expressed their intention of not 
 cross-examining with reference to the handwriting of the 
 prisoners.) 
 
 44
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Miss WILMORB, recalled, examined by Mr. BESLBY At the Miss Wilmore 
 inquest two fringed earrings were shown to me. The earrings 
 which Mrs. King wore had a fringe on them, and were very like 
 those shown to me. They were not gold. 
 
 Adjourned till to-morrow. 
 
 !.-.
 
 Third Day Wednesday, 24th November, 1875. 
 
 W. Taylor WILLIAM TAYLOR, examined by Mr. POLAND I am a coach- 
 man, and live at 7 Clarendon Mews, Hyde Park Square. My 
 wife is a daughter of Mr. John Lane. I knew her sister Harriet. 
 She used to visit us* as Mrs. King about once in three weeks or 
 a fortnight, and she sometimes wrote. She had been in the 
 habit of writing us at the Mews for very nearly four years. 
 On 30th August, last year, I and my wife went out of town 
 together. I saw Harriet Lane at my house three days before 
 that. My wife was out of town. Harriet was then well, and I 
 chatted with her. That was the last time I saw her. During 
 the time we were out of town at my uncle's, near Yeovil, a letter 
 came from her that was early in September, the 4th or 5th. 
 After our holidays we returned to town. On 15th September last 
 I and my wife went to the dead-house at St. Saviour's Church, 
 and saw the remains of a woman. In my opinion they 
 were those of Harriet Lane. I recognised them by the 
 small feet and the hands, and the colour of the hair. The last 
 time she was at my house I noticed she complained of toothache, 
 and she pointed to the right-hand side of the upper jaw as the 
 place. She had a decayed tooth there, which was perceptible 
 when she laughed or smiled. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did you ever observe it 1 Yes. 
 
 Was it to the tooth that she pointed? Yes. 
 
 Examination continued Her two front upper teeth pro- 
 jected a little. I remember two jet buttons being brought to my 
 house by Mr. Allen, my brother-in-law. I gave them to 
 Inspector Fox on a card in the same state as I received them. 
 My wife was not present at the time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT Before I saw the remains 
 I was told there were no features by which I could recognise 
 them. I knew I was going to see remains unrecognisable by 
 features. I mentioned when before the magistrate that there 
 was a decayed tooth, but I omitted all mention of the toothache. 
 It did not occur to me at the time. The hair I saw was of the 
 same colour, and I said when before the magistrate that by the 
 decayed tooth and hair, and the small hands and feet, I had no 
 doubt it was Harriet Lane. 
 
 46
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY While the envelope and the w. Taylor 
 letter were in the possession of my wife I looked at them. My 
 wife or I I won't be certain which took the letter out and 
 read it. The next day we gave them to Detective Forster, 
 and he also read the letter. We showed it to him because we 
 thought it important. We did not show it to any one else. 
 The other relatives did not observe it, and thought the papers 
 were envelopes only. I thought it was an important letter. 
 I saw my wife put it back into the envelope. 
 
 By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL When Forster had looked at it, 
 he put it back into the same envelope. They had heard of 
 Frieake. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What was the date of the post- 
 mark? 5th September. 
 
 Mrs. SOPHIA ALLEN, examined I am a sister of the deceased. Mrs. Allen 
 I am the wife of Thomas Allen, and reside at Oldfield Road, 
 Maidenhead. Harriet Louisa Lane was younger than I. She 
 was the seventh daughter; I am the fifth. Harriet was a trifle 
 taller than I. I have compared heights with her several times, 
 standing back to back and measuring ourselves. She had 
 peculiarly small hands and fingers. I remember an accident 
 happening to her when she was about ten years old. There was 
 a poker in the fire ; while she was sitting on a little stool by the 
 fire-grate the poker fell out, burning the right leg and leaving 
 a scar. She cried very much. I fetched the oil for it to be 
 dressed. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Whereabouts was it on the 
 leg? To the best of my recollection, about 4 inches below the 
 knee, on the outside of the leg. It had the appearance of a scar, 
 and seemed to be drawn very much. I was about nineteen years 
 old then. 
 
 Examination continued The last time I recollect seeing the 
 scar was about six years ago. It is three years come January 
 since I left my father's house. My sister left about a year or 
 eighteen months before me. She was well educated, and at 
 one time she was a governess in a family. She afterwards 
 became a dressmaker. On one occasion, about six years ago, 
 I and my sister were photographed together at Shoreditch, in 
 a standing posture. (Photograph produced and identified.) I 
 was dressed in a blue silk and my sister in a black dress. She 
 is the lady on the right hand. She had light hair of a golden 
 tinge. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLEY My sister had not two 
 
 47
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs Allen marks one on each leg; she had only one. The mark was 
 drawn very much. 
 
 At the* Police Court did you not say it was about the size 
 of a two-shilling piece, only a little drawn? To the best of 
 my recollection, I think I said so then, but now that I have come 
 to refer back, it seems to me that it was very much drawn. 
 Nothing until my sister disappeared, or until the inquest or 
 police inquiry, occurred to call it to my mind. She said when 
 we were together that, should anything happen to her, we 
 should know her by the mark. I also have a mark on my fore- 
 head. I did not see the remains. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I saw the accident, and was 
 present when the burn was dressed. The scar was in the same 
 place as the burn, and I have no doubt it was the scar of the 
 burn. To the best of my recollection it was about the size of 
 a two-shilling piece. 
 
 John Lane JOHN LANE, examined by Mr. BEASLBT I reside at Waltham 
 Cross, and am gas manager to the Royal Gunpowder Mills at 
 Waltham Abbey. I have had nine daughters born and 
 christened, and two sons. I had a daughter named Harriet 
 Louisa. She was born at Weymouth. I don't exactly recollect 
 the year, but she would be now about twenty-four years of age. 
 She was my youngest daughter, and she was brought up as a 
 milliner and dressmaker at Waltham Cross. Whilst there she 
 was in the habit of coming backwards and forwards to her 
 home. She served her time there with Mrs. Bray, and she then 
 went to London when about twenty -one. She used to frequently 
 come and visit me and her mother during 1871, 1872, and 
 1873. She never stopped very long without coming to us. 
 
 Do you remember the last occasion on which she came to 
 visit you? I cannot recollect particularly about the time that 
 is, I cannot say to a day or two but it was some time in 
 August, 1874. 
 
 Did you know where she was living? No; I never knew 
 properly where she was living then, but I was informed she 
 was living somewhere in Whitechapel. 
 
 Did you know what name she passed under ? I knew she was 
 going by the name of Mrs. King. 
 
 Did you know she had at that time two children? No, I 
 did not know she had two. I knew she had one. 
 
 Was she said to be married? It was supposed she was 
 married, but I could not say that she was. She was on very 
 friendly terms with us. No angry words ever came out of our 
 
 48
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 mouths towards her, or out of hers towards us, to iny recollec- John 
 tion. I have not seen her alive since that occasion in August, 
 1874. She appeared then to be in perfect good health. I 
 never saw Mr. King at all during that time. I first heard ehe 
 was missing in 1874 about the beginning of September, the 
 10th, llth, or 12th. I set about making inquiries with my 
 daughters, and continued to do so, but without result. We could 
 not hear of anything to our satisfaction. I remember first 
 hearing the name of Frieake very soon after she was missing. 
 We did not at first try to find Mr. Frieake, but early last 
 February, I think, we tried to find him out, and we did not 
 see him. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Was that before or after you 
 saw Henry Wainwright? Before. I cannot say the day. I 
 know it was in very dark days and in very bad weather. 
 
 Examination continued Where did you go to see Mr. 
 Frieake? I went to the office of Mr. Frieake, in his auction 
 room, in Whitechapel Road, while he was selling there. Mr. 
 Eeles (or Mr. Fowler, as he is called) went with me. He was the 
 gentleman who took me there. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You and Mr. Eeles went to 
 make the inquiry 1 I had only seen Mr. Eeles once before that, 
 but my daughters and he had been making inquiries. 
 
 Examination continued After having some conversation 
 with Frieake, we went direct (I and Mr. Eeles) to see Henry 
 Wainwright. I had never seen him before to my knowledge. I 
 think we found him in the front part of the house, just going 
 in, on the right-hand side of Whitechapel Road, just below the 
 church. It was a brushmaker's place of business. He was 
 pointed out to me as Mr. Wainwright by Mr. Eeles. He invited 
 us upstairs. I said, " I am Mr. Lane, and I have come to 
 know what has become of my daughter," because I wished to 
 know where she was. He seemed to make very light of it. I 
 don't mind his answer, but he said she was all right, she was 
 right enough. I asked him to let me know where she was, 
 for I wanted to know whether she was dead or alive, and if she 
 was dead, to let me know. He said she was all right, that she 
 had gone away with Mr. Frieake. To the best of my recollection, 
 I don't remember who he said Mr. Frieake was, but I am certain 
 he used that name. We then said we had seen Mr. Frieake, the 
 auctioneer, and that he denied all knowledge of knowing any- 
 thing about my daughter. Then Wainwright said that Mr. 
 Frieake was not the man at all ; it was a different man altogether 
 a man with no moustache, or only just a little moustache. 
 x 40
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 John Lane This was the only description he gave of him. He gave me no 
 address. I said I was determined to find out my daughter; 
 if not, I should take higher steps to find her. 
 
 Have you told us all you said? I believe I have. 
 
 Was it at that time you showed him a letter ? Was it you or 
 Mr. Eeles? I never saw him but once, and I think it was I 
 who passed the letter into his hands myself. It was the letter 
 I got from -Mr. Frieake. I think I should know it again. (Letter 
 produced.) I cannot read writing, but I believe this to be the 
 one I showed Wainwright. He took it in his hand and opened 
 it. I cannot say whether he read it or not. He kept it before 
 him, and seemed to read it. I said to him, " This is the letter 
 which came from Mr. Frieake, and he denies all knowledge of 
 my daughter." 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How long was he looking at it? 
 It might have been a minute or two. I cannot say exactly, 
 but he unfolded and looked at it. 
 
 You cannot read yourself, but you have seen persons read 
 writing, and you can form a judgment as to whether, from the 
 way he took the letter and looked at it, he read it? Well, I 
 supposed at the time he was reading it. 
 
 Examination continued I think I have told all that I 
 said when I handed the letter. I said, besides, " If I cannot 
 find where my daughter is , it must come to an exposure. ' ' 
 
 Did Mr. Eeles say anything in your hearing about the letter? 
 He said something, but I don't know what. I said, "If it 
 comes to an exposure, it will be worse for you than for me " ; 
 and he said, "If it comes to an exposure it must; I know it 
 will be worse for me." That is the only interview I had with 
 Henry Wainwright. In the following January I received my 
 daughter Harriet's boxes. On 14th September this year I was 
 taken to see the remains of a dead body. The body was not 
 shown to me till the 15th, by Inspector Fox and some other 
 gentlemen. It was in portions, cut up. 
 
 Did you form any judgment as to whose body it was ? The 
 moment I looked through the glass I seemed to feel that it was 
 my daughter's. 
 
 What did you recognise it by ? I recognised it by the hair, 
 the feet, the legs, and the hands. I was so satisfied nothing 
 would ever turn me the moment I saw her. The legs appeared 
 to me to be perfect. The feet and hands were quite perfect, 
 only very dark. I could not see any natural colour. The hair 
 was just the same as that of my daughter. She had small hands 
 
 50
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 and long fingers. I don't properly know her height, but, as John 
 nearly as I could judge, she was 5 feet high. 
 
 Was there anything else you recognised her by? Nothing. 
 I knew she had a scar upon her leg, but I had not seen it of 
 late years. It has never been shown to me on the body, but 
 I have made a statement of it. I know as a fact she had a scar 
 on her leg. I could not remember for some time on which leg, 
 but it proved to be on the right. It was some years since I saw it 
 six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you remember the accident 
 happening? I was not present at the time, but I was given to 
 understand that it was done by a poker. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLEY Did you know of your 
 daughter being a governess at all? I understood she was a 
 governess for some little time after she was out of her appren- 
 ticeship. 
 
 After she was out of her apprenticeship, did she not go to 
 London to go into business with another young woman? Yes. 
 How soon after she had gone to London did you know she 
 was living at Whitechapel? About two or three weeks. 
 
 You never had her address, and never went to any lodgings 
 of hers? Never in my life. 
 
 From the time she left home you believed she was provided 
 fort I did. 
 
 And you know nothiug of any pawning of her clothing? I 
 was not aware of any. 
 
 You are unable to fix the date when she last came to 
 Waltham? You spoke of August, 1874. Are you sure it was 
 August? I am sure it was in August either the beginning or 
 the middle. 
 
 Might it not have been at the end of July? No, it was 
 not. I am almost sure of that. 
 
 Long intervals often occurred between her coming to see 
 you? I can't say often, but it has occurred, sometimes six 
 or seven weeks. 
 
 You have given an account of going with Mr. Eeles to 
 Henry Wainwright. Let me ask you, is this what occurred 
 did Eeles say to Henry Wainwright, " Here is a letter that 
 has come from Frieake, the auctioneer "? Yes. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He mentioned the word " auc- 
 tioneer"? He did. 
 
 Cross-examination continued And did Wainwright immedi- 
 ately say, " The auctioneer is not the man "? He said he was 
 not the man. 
 
 51
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 John Lane By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did he say that before or after 
 he looked at the letter ? I think it was after. 
 
 The learned counsel asked whether he said it immediately? 
 I am not quite certain whether it was before or after. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Is it a fact that he held the 
 letter for a moment or two, and that conversation was going on 
 all the time ? I don't believe it was. He stopped for a time to 
 look at the letter, and then the conversation went on. 
 
 Is this accurate then " He had the letter for a moment 
 or two. I cannot say whether the conversation was not going 
 on while he held the letter " 1 I am not certain. 
 
 Then what I have just read may be correct? 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I cannot allow that. We must 
 be regular in every case. You must put questions and not read 
 anything. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Can you say whether the con- 
 versation was going on all the time Henry Wainwright held 
 the letter? I believe not. 
 
 Have you always said the same? That is my belief. 
 
 Are you able to tell me, yes or no, whether you have always 
 said the same? To the best of my knowledge I have always 
 said so. 
 
 Did you mention the word " exposure" first? I mentioned 
 it, but I cannot say at what part of the story. He said, " If 
 it comes to an exposure it must." I said, "If it does, it will 
 be heavier for you than for me." Mrs. Taylor was the tallest 
 of my daughters, slightly taller than Harriet. I have two 
 daughters shorter than Harriet. Harriet was not the shortest. 
 I judge Mrs. Allen to be about the same height as Harriet. 
 
 When you were asked about the height, did you say that 
 Harriet was outside five feet? I judged her to be not more than 
 five feet. I did not believe her to be more. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That expression, " outside five 
 feet," might have two meanings. It might mean five feet at 
 the extreme, or it might mean over five feet. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Before you saw the remains, 
 had you been told the features were unrecognisable? I heard 
 so. 
 
 Had Mrs. Taylor seen them before you? We saw them 
 together. 
 
 Did you speak together upon the points upon which you 
 relied for identity before you went to see the remains? Not 
 a word. 
 
 52
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 You went away thoroughly satisfied? I did. Directly I John Lane 
 went into the police office I mentioned the scar on the leg. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE When did the fact of her having 
 a scar on the leg occur to your mind? When I was giving my 
 first evidence. 
 
 Cross-examination continued You had not seen the scar 
 for many years? I had not. I knew there was one. She was 
 seven or eight years old at the time the accident happened. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I gave my evidence 
 first in the Police Court and saw the remains after. When 
 before the magistrate I mentioned the scar. I have had nine 
 daughters born and christened; three are dead. Two died 
 young; one was a twin. Harriet was the youngest of my 
 daughters. 
 
 ERNEST GEORGE EELES, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL E. G. 
 I live at the office of the Charity Organisation Society at 
 Wandsworth. I am an inquiry officer there. It is part of my 
 duty to make inquiries about people. I have known Mr. and 
 Mrs. Taylor for some years. I saw Harriet Lane once only. I 
 knew she was the sister of Mrs. Taylor. I had known the 
 Taylors about six or seven years. I first heard that Harriet 
 Lane was missing in January of the present year. The Taylors 
 came to see me, and, in consequence of a conversation I had 
 with them, I, at their request, instituted inquiries. In prosecut- 
 ing my inquiries I represented myself to be Mr. Fowler, 
 because Harriet Lane knew me by the name of Eeles, and I 
 thought possibly if she heard that a person named Eeles was 
 making inquiries after her it might have the opposite effect to 
 that desired. I went to Henry Wainwright at 215 Whitechapel 
 Road, I think about 16th January of the present year. I saw 
 him first outside the house. I came up rather behind him, put 
 my hand against his shoulder, and said, " Mr. Wainwright, I 
 think." He said, "Yes." I eaid, " I wish to speak privately 
 for a minute." He said, " Step inside." I said to him, " Do 
 you know a person named Mrs. King or Harriet Lane? " He 
 said, "Yes." I then said, "You have known her about 
 four years?" He said, "Yes." I said, "She has had two 
 children by you?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Where is she 
 now? " or " Do you know where she is?" I cannot remember 
 the words exactly. He said, " I do not know." The surveyor 
 for the Sun Fire Office was outside as he told me, and they were 
 going across to measure the premises at No. 84. He said, 
 " Are you in a hurry? " I said, " No." He said, " Will you 
 
 63
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 E. G. Eeles step across?" I said, "Yes," and we went across. There 
 was some measuring done at No. 84, and after it was over we 
 returned to No. 215. I then asked him when he had last seen 
 Harriet Lane. He said, " Some time ago now." I said, 
 "Where do you think she is?" He said he thought she had 
 gone away with a man named Teddy Frieake, who had lately 
 come into about 2000; " there are five brothers who had had 
 11,000 left between them; no doubt they are enjoying them- 
 selves, and she will turn up again when the money is all spent." 
 He said that Frieake was an auctioneer. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Are you sure? I am under the 
 impression that he did. I know he said so on a subsequent 
 occasion, if not then. 
 
 Examination continued I gave him my name as Fowler, 
 and my address at the post office, High Street, Wandsworth, if 
 he should want to write to me. My impression is that I gave 
 it to him as some sort of satisfaction at the time. Shortly after 
 that interview I saw Mrs. Taylor, and she gave me the letter 
 marked E, and a telegram. I have lost the telegram. I have 
 made diligent search for it, and I cannot find it. I have no 
 recollection of having given it to anybody. I then went to 
 Mr. Frieake, of 11 Coleman Street. I saw his address on one 
 of the handbills notifying that a sale was to take place at his 
 auction room, Aldgate. I saw Mr. Frieake at Coleman Street, 
 and showed him the letter that I had got from Mrs. Taylor. 
 I am not quite positive whether I showed him the telegram 
 or not. I had some conversation with him, and he showed me 
 his letter book and some of his writing. * After a little time we 
 left the office and went together to Henry Wainwright at 215 
 Whitechapel Road. 
 
 On this second occasion did you see Wainwright? Yes. 
 
 What did you say to him? " Mr. Wainwright, I have found 
 Mr. Frieake." He said, "Oh, this is not the Mr. Frieake. 
 You have made a mistake." Frieake thereupon said, "What 
 is this, Harry?" He replied, " Oh, it's a mistake altogether." 
 This conversation took place just outside the house, on the 
 opposite side of the road to No. 215. We crossed the road and 
 went into a front room upstairs, in No. 215. Frieake about 
 this time said to Wainwright, " You are getting me into a mess 
 that I know nothing of, and you may do me a serious injury." 
 In reply to that Wainwright said, " You are not the Teddy 
 Frieake I mean. The Teddy Frieake I mean is a billiard player. 
 I have seen him frequently at PurcelTs, the Philharmonic, and 
 the Nell Gwynne." Frieake then said, " Do you mean to say 
 
 54
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 you have ever known another Teddy Frieake and not inquired E. G. Eeles 
 who he was? I don't believe you will find another Teddy 
 Frieake with the name spelt the same as mine in the London 
 Directory. If you know anything about the affair, why don't 
 you tell them at once ? I saw you with a fair-haired girl a short 
 time ago. Is that the one?" Wainwright said, "No; I can 
 produce her in five minutes." He said that Frieake was a young 
 man with no whiskers, and scarcely any moustache, not above a 
 dozen or a score of hairs. After that conversation I left. I left 
 just before Mr. Frieake, I think. 
 
 I saw Mrs. Taylor again, and afterwards Mr. Lane. I went 
 with Mr. Lane to Mr. Frieake's auction rooms. I and Mr. Lane 
 at that time had a conversation with Mr. Frieake. He gave 
 me this letter marked A (produced) in an envelope. I after- 
 wards gave the letter and envelope to Mrs. Taylor. I think the 
 letter was not in the envelope ; I did not get the letter back from 
 Mrs. Taylor. When I got the letter and envelope I and Mr. 
 Lane went to see Henry Wainwright at No. 215. He was not in 
 at first. We waited for him, and he came in after a short 
 interval. I said to him, "This is Mr. Lane, Harriet Lane's 
 father." He asked us to go upstairs, and we went up. Mr. 
 Lane said, " Where is my daughter?" He said, "I do not 
 know." Mr. Lane said, " If she is dead, tell me; and if alive, 
 let me know where she is." Wainwright said that he did not 
 know where she was, but he would do all he could to try and 
 find her. Mr. Lane said, "I am determined to find her; if 
 it conies to an exposure it must, but that will be worse for you 
 than for us." During the conversation Mr. Lane was pacing 
 backwards and forwards, wringing his hands in great agony of 
 mind. I showed this letter to Mr. Wainwright, told him I had 
 received it from Mr. Frieake, and asked him whether he could 
 give any explanation of it. He appeared to read it, and while 
 he had it in his hand I said, " Can you tell me what this part 
 alludes to?" pointing to that part, "If Harry and yourself 
 could see me to-morrow evening, we may be able to arrange 
 matters satisfactorily as the time is now very short." He said 
 he did not know what it meant. He appeared to read the letter, 
 and afterwards during the interview he gave it back to me. I 
 do not remember that he made any further remark upon it. 
 [Letter read. " Sunday night. Mr. "dear Mr. Frieake, I trust 
 you will pardon me writing to you, but I feel I ought to apologise 
 for my rude behaviour to you last evening, after the kindness 
 I have received from you. I had been worried and annoyed 
 during the day, which caused me to be very excited. I felt very 
 
 05
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 K. G. Eeles sorry you left me so cross. I did not go out after, as you wished 
 me not to. I have well considered the subject we spoke of, and 
 think if Harry and yourself could see me to-morrow evening, 
 we might be able to arrange matters satisfactorily, as the time 
 is now very short. Please write by return, and let me know 
 if you will call, or if I shall meet you anywhere. For the future 
 I will promise to behave more ladylike. Should I not hear 
 from you, I shall consider I am not forgiven. I remain, very 
 truly yours, L. KING."] 
 
 I have no means of fixing the date of my second interview 
 with Henry Wainwright. I called upon him after that interview 
 several times, and asked him about the missing woman. On one 
 occasion he said that one of the workmen had seen her in a cab 
 somewhere in the West End, but I forget the place he named. 
 On another occasion he said that Miss Wilmore had seen her in 
 a cab, and named the place, somewhere in the West End. He 
 said on another occasion that she would turn up again some day, 
 when the money was all gone. The last time I saw him I made 
 inquiries about her. To the best of my recollection it was in 
 the early part of July this year. I cannot find the telegram 
 Mrs. Taylor gave me, but I read it. It was on the ordinary 
 telegraph paper, I think. It was from E. Frieake, Dover, to 
 Miss Wilmore, 6 The Grove, Stratford I cannot recollect the 
 date " We are just off to Paris, and mean to have a jolly 
 "spree." 
 
 Mrs. Taylor Mrs. TAYLOR, re-examined Mr. Eeles gave me the letter 
 which has been read, in an envelope; I have lost it. I have 
 searched for it everywhere I could think of. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLEY I believe I gave it to Mr. 
 Fowler. 
 
 1. G. Eeles ERNEST GEORGE EELES, examination continued I have 
 searched for the letter, but I think I returned it to Mrs. Taylor. 
 
 Mrs. Taylor Mrs. TAYLOR, re-examined Mr. Eeles gave the letter back 
 to me in an envelope; I did not give it back to him afterwards. 
 
 I. G. Eeles ERNEST GEORGE EELES, examination continued I had the 
 envelope when I had the letter. . I took the letter out of the 
 envelope and gave him the letter, but not the envelope. 
 
 Mrs. Taylor Mrs. TAYLOR, re-examined I read the envelope which I 
 have lost. This is the letter. (Produced.) I have got another 
 56
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 letter from Miss Wilmore; this is the letter I got from Eeles. Mrs. Taylor 
 It is the envelope of this letter which I have lost, and looked 
 for and cannot find. 
 
 ERNEST GEORGE EELES, cross-examined by Mr. RESLBY K. G. Eeles 
 Before I saw Henry Wainwright I cannot be positive where I 
 had an interview with Miss Wilmore. I made no memorandum 
 of my conversation with her. The name of Frieake was not 
 mentioned to me by her. I had his name from Mrs. Taylor. 
 I cannot say how she got the information. The first time I saw 
 Wainwright I had not had the letter from the Charing Cross 
 Hotel, and knew nothing about it. I pursued my inquiries 
 about the young man named Frieake with Miss Wilmore. Mrs. 
 Taylor called my attention to the name of Frieake being on an 
 auctioneer's bill, and that was how I came to go to Mr. Frieake. 
 
 Is it true that for some time you believed that both Edward 
 Frieake and Henry Wainwright were telling you untruths? I 
 did for some time think they were deceiving me. 
 
 Did you say once to the prisoner you should go to his 
 private house in Tredegar Square and see his wife? I don't 
 recollect saying so. I never said I should go and tell his wife 
 he had had two children. I am positive about that. I was 
 never in doubt about it, though at the moment I said, in answer 
 to the question, " I don't recollect." 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE A witness must have allowance 
 made for such a question being suddenly put to him. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Did you afterwards believe 
 that both Edward Frieake and Wainwright were telling you the 
 truth? No; I never believed that they were telling me the 
 truth, but I never saw Frieake afterwards. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You believed all along that 
 they were deceiving you? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Did you learn from what was 
 said, or from the surveyor's measuring, that there was a dispute 
 with a fire office about the burning of Wainwright'e premises? 
 I heard there was, but I cannot say how. I did not say to 
 Wainwright, " I shall expect some money when you get the 
 money from the fire office." 
 
 Did you ever say that if the money were given to you, you 
 would give up making inquiries, and that you would guarantee 
 that no further inquiries should be made? No, I did not. 
 
 Did you ever write in those terms, or anything like them? 
 No, not in those terms at all. 
 
 Is there passing in your mind terms like these? No. 
 
 57
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 B. G. Eeles Did you write to Henry Wainwright? I did, but I have 
 not got his reply. I bought goods from him. The letters 
 referred to the inquiries I was making about him. 
 
 Did he refuse in any way to give you money ? No, never ; 
 decidedly not. 
 
 When were the goods bought from him? I cannot recollect. 
 I have no receipt or invoice. I bought them, but they are not 
 settled for yet. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What was about the date? 
 About March or April. 
 
 And what was the amount? About 17s. I bought one lot of 
 goods, and no more. 
 
 Did you write to Mrs. Wainwright at Tredegar Square? I 
 did not. I addressed letters to Mr. Wainwright at Tredegar 
 Square not above two or three. After I had the goods I went 
 as often to 215 Whitechapel Road as before. 
 
 By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL What were the goods you 
 bought? Brushes and mats. 
 
 You have been asked whether you did not think both the 
 prisoner and Edward Frieake were deceiving you. Up to what 
 time did you believe it ? I believed they were deceiving me up 
 to 14th September, when I first heard of this trouble. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE When did you first hear Frieake 
 mentioned as " Teddy Frieake " who first mentioned the name 
 of "Teddy Frieake"? Henry Wainwright mentioned that 
 name to me first when I saw him on the first occasion after we 
 came back from measuring the premises of No. 84 ; it was before 
 I had seen Mr. Frieake at Coleman Street, and on the occasion 
 of my first visit to Mr. Wainwright. 
 
 E.W. Frieake EDWARD WILLIAM FRIEAKE, examined I am an auctioneer 
 and public-house valuer, with offices at 11 Coleman Street, 
 City, and auction rooms at 14 and 15 Aldgate. I have been in 
 business about five years. I have known Henry Wainwright 
 familiarly for twelve or fourteen years. I was on terms of 
 intimacy with him for many years; he used to address me as 
 " Teddy" or " Frieaky," and I used to address him as " Harry." 
 I have lived at Bow for nearly sixteen years. Up to September 
 last I was on friendly terms with him. In September last year 
 I received by post this letter (produced) at my office in Coleman 
 Street. I read it, of course, but I did not know the writer. I 
 never knew a person named L. King to my knowledge. I was 
 utterly astonished, and could not imagine 'what it referred to. 
 As far as I recollect, it was received about the 29th, 30th, or 
 58
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 31st of August of last year; it was on a Monday morning. My B. W. Frieake 
 father was at the office at the time. I took it home and showed 
 it to my friends, after showing it to my father. For a time 
 it was made rather a matter of joke in my family circle, and 
 then it passed from my mind. 
 
 I recollect Eeles coming to my office as Mr. Fowler at the 
 latter end of January or the beginning of February. He was 
 alone. He made several, as I thought, impertinent inquiries, 
 and showed a letter. This letter (E) is it to the best of my 
 belief; I recollect Charing Cross Hotel on the top of it. It was 
 signed " E. Frieake," leaving out the " W " and the " a." 
 I always sign my name " Edward W. Frieake." I read it, and 
 expressed my astonishment to Eeles. It was not written by me, 
 and I know nothing about the matters referred to in it, or of a 
 telegram which he also showed me. I produced my letter book, 
 and said that he could look at any letters in it to see my 
 writing. I then went with him to see Henry Wainwright at 
 No. 215 Whitechapel Road. I asked to see Wainwright, and 
 I said, " Harry, I want to see you privately." Eeles was 
 behind me, and Wainwright, who met us, ushered us up into 
 the first floor sitting-room. I then said, " This individual " 
 (alluding to Fowler) " has been to my office and accused me of 
 taking a girl away by the name of King, and has said that you 
 are his informant to that effect." He said, " Oh, Teddy, old 
 man, it is not you; it is another Teddy Frieake." I said, 
 " Well, it is a very serious imputation to cast upon my char- 
 acter, and, should it get to the ears of the lady I am engaged 
 to be married to, it will very likely ruin my happiness," or 
 something to that effect. I said, " What sort of man is this 
 Teddy Frieake, who has represented me"? He said, " Oh, he 
 is only a young fellow about twenty-three or twenty-four, with 
 a slight black moustache," and I think he said, " and a very 
 little whisker, and has lately come into a lot of money." I 
 then appealed to Fowler, and asked him whether he was satis- 
 fied that I was not the man alluded to. Before that I asked 
 him where he had known this Teddy Frieake, and he said, " At 
 the King's Head billiard rooms, Fenchurch Street, and the 
 Philharmonic." I asked him whether he had ever seen me at 
 either of those places, and he said, " No." I said, " Well, 
 it is a strange thing that you should have known another Teddy 
 Frieake and not have asked him whether he had relations living 
 at Bow, as mine is not a Brown, Jones, or Robinson name." 
 He said he had principally known him as Teddy. I said, " If 
 I had met another Henry Wainwright, and been introduced to 
 
 59
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 E. W. Frleake him, I should have asked him whether he had any relations in 
 Whitechapel," and that, as mine was a very peculiar name, I 
 was surprised that he had not made any inquiries about the said 
 Teddy Frieake when he first met him. I turned round to Fowler 
 and said, " As far as 10 or 20 would go, I would give it 
 willingly to find out the person who has represented me, as 
 it might be a very serious matter for me." I said, " Who is 
 the fair girl I saw you with a few weeks before or since? " In 
 fact, I had followed them into a public-house. Fowler then left, 
 and I had some conversation with Wainwright alone. I said, 
 " Harry, old man, if you know anything about this girl's where- 
 abouts, why don't you ease their minds and let them know? " 
 He said, " Teddy, old man, this is only a get-up to extort money 
 from me ; the girl is all right." I think that was all that passed. 
 When I heard of this matter I went to the police station, 
 Borough, and gave my card, and saw Superintendent Garforth, 
 to whom I gave information. The entries in my diary of this 
 year (produced) are in my handwriting, all but one. From 
 that I have very little doubt that I saw Henry Wainwright on 
 llth September, 1874. He asked me to send a cart down at six 
 o'clock on that evening to No. 84 Whitechapel Road. It would 
 be early in the morning as I passed up to town. He was going 
 to give me a sale of surplus stock. I was in the habit of sending 
 carts there. The cart left my office at 6.15 that evening; that 
 is the time it is booked by the carman's bill, until a certain 
 time when he charges me with it; he has charged me for two 
 hours. He was not my carman. He occupied the ground floor 
 of the premises which I occupy the first floor of. I do not know 
 where he is now. 
 
 I never recollect seeing Thomas Wainwright in my life; I 
 may have seen him ; there is something familiar about his face, 
 Iwit I never recollect having any intercourse with him. I did 
 not know that Henry had a brother Thomas. I have worn a 
 beard and moustache ever since I was twenty-one or twenty-two. 
 I have my portrait, taken years ago, in my pocket. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBY We were young fellows 
 together in the neighbourhood of Bow. That was the commence- 
 ment of my knowledge of Wainwright. I have not been as 
 intimate with him for the last two or three years as I used to 
 be. I have not gone about with him lately, but I used to see 
 his family several nights in the week. There had been no cold- 
 ness between us, we were on perfectly good terms. The 
 transaction of my selling goods for him was about July or 
 August, at the time of his difficulties, when he was making
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 his composition. The goods were some of his surplus stock. B. W. Frieake 
 
 I think the goods were only partially lotted when his manager, 
 
 Rogers, came and finished them at my rooms. The goods were 
 
 not considerable in number. I believe the van only went twice 
 
 for them ; I believe it went in the evening and in the morning. 
 
 The entry in my diary is Friday, September 1 1 ; I made that as 
 
 soon as I entered the office, and I have no doubt that I saw 
 
 Wainwright on the morning of the llth, and received directions 
 
 to take the van there at six o'clock. This " evening, six 
 
 o'clock " is in my writing. I am certain that the order was 
 
 executed, because I have been paid for the cart. The goods 
 
 were in my possession some time before they were put up for 
 
 auction, and the fire occurred in November, some eix weeks 
 
 after the sale. I did not act for Wainwright in any way after 
 
 the fire. I was asked to be a witness by the company, and also 
 
 by Wainwright. Fowler came to me in January, 1875. The 
 
 fire was in November, 1874, and my visit to Wainwright was 
 
 early in 1875. I was to be a witness for him in reference to 
 
 the action against him. I supplied him with an account for the 
 
 sale, and I have a claim against him, and he has one against 
 
 me. It is unsettled. He said that Frieake had come into a 
 
 lot of money, and as soon as it was spent the girl would return. 
 
 He also said, " You will hear nothing more about it." When 
 
 he said, " This is a get up to extort money from me," Fowler 
 
 had left. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I don't think I said before 
 the magistrate that the face of Thomas was familiar to me as 
 that of a person I had frequently seen in the neighbourhood 
 of Bow; I said it was a face I had seen at Bow, but could not 
 call to mind. After this was said about it being an attempt 
 to extort money, I took no further steps, although I said that 
 I was willing to spend money to investigate it. It entirely 
 passed from my memory, because, knowing Wainwright as I 
 did, I naturally believed him. I am speaking from memory 
 as to the date when I received the letter. I know it was a 
 Monday morning, but I have nothing to guide me but my 
 memory as to the particular Monday morning, except the 
 expression in the letter, " Sunday night." My young lady 
 called my attention to it, where I was on that Saturday evening. 
 That was an after-conversation between me and the lady I waa 
 going to marry. Independent of that conversation, I feel certain 
 it was on a Monday morning, because when this came up I 
 referred to two or three things which still more fixed it. I 
 examined the paper, the envelope, and postmark. I carried it 
 
 61
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 W. Frieake in my pocket some time, and I taxed my clerk as to whether 
 he knew anything of it. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL The letters A.U. 
 were on the envelope. I know from my diary that I got the 
 order to send the van to Wainwright's place, No. 84, that day. 
 It would get there in a quarter of an hour, have some goods 
 put into it, and come back to my salerooms. The sale took 
 place on llth October, a month after. I don't remember how 
 many goods there were. There were brushes and things of 
 that sort. I gave the letter, which I did not understand, to 
 Mr. Lane, and the envelope with it. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE When the first parties came to 
 me I did not recollect the letter, not till I got home, and then I 
 repeated the conversation between Fowler, Wainwright, and 
 myself, and my lady called my attention to it, and my recollec- 
 tion was brought back to it. 
 
 A. Woodward ALFRED COOPER WOODWARD, examined I am a clerk in the 
 telegraph message branch of the General Post Office. I produce 
 the telegraph books of October last from the Admiralty Pier, 
 Dover, and also from the Eastern District of London, the 
 Stratford post office, and the Walham Green post office. The 
 original telegraphic messages which are handed in by any person 
 sending a telegram are sent to my branch, and after being 
 kept for a month are sent to the mill to be reduced to pulp. 
 These papers would be destroyed at the end of three months. 
 
 P. Crofts PETER CROFTS, examined I am one of the telegraph clerks 
 on the Admiralty Pier, Dover. I attended there daily in 
 October, 1874. I find an entry in one of the books in my 
 writing. It is the book in which the messages which are handed 
 in are recorded. These messages would be telegraphed to 
 London. Three telegraphic messages in the name of Frieake 
 were sent in on 17th October. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY The messages are in my 
 writing. I make the entries at the close of the day. We copy 
 them off at the close of the day from the original messages, not 
 from any other document. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY -GENERAL The three mes- 
 sages are numbered consecutively 4029 to 4031 inclusive. Each 
 telegram has a number impressed upon it. We do not number 
 them at the time they are sent in ; we number them up in the 
 evening when we enter them up. There is no number on the 
 message when it is sent in, but we number them in the evening
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 when we enter them up. If a man comes to the office and sends P, Crofts 
 
 a telegram, it is put on a file face downwards after the message 
 
 is sent, in the order in which it is sent in, and in the evening 
 
 we take them off the file, numbering them at the same time. 
 
 We look through to see that they are in their places as when 
 
 they are handed in. The three messages in the name of Frieake 
 
 are consecutive in my book. Frieake to London is one message, 
 
 Frieake to London is another, and Frieake to Stratford is 
 
 another. I should say that those messages were sent off between 
 
 four and six o'clock. 
 
 ALICE BERRY, examined I am a clerk in the Eastern District Alice Berry 
 post office, and was so on 17th October, 1874. It was my duty 
 if a telegraphic message came there to write it out and forward 
 it. I find in my book on 17th October an entry, " Wainwright, 
 Dover Pier." That is a telegram addressed to Wainwright from 
 Dover Pier. I did not write it out that was the duty of the 
 instrument clerk, Catherine Folley but I should put it in the 
 envelope and send it out, and make an entry whence it comes, 
 or to whom it is addressed, or the name of the office from 
 which it is sent. Whitechapel Road is in our district, both 84 
 and 215, but not all parts of it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBY I know that of my own 
 knowledge, and from the writing in the book. I have no 
 numbers of Whitechapel Road in the books. No one has told 
 me that 215 and 84 are in my district, but I know it because 
 we send telegrams to Mr. Wainwright; this telegram to him 
 is entered in the book. We have sent telegrams to him at 215 
 on other occasions; I believe 215 is my district, and I think No. 
 84 is, but I am not sure. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. POLAND If a telegram comes which 
 is not in our district I think it would be sent on to another 
 office. 
 
 PHILIP VINCENT, examined I am a clerk in charge of the Philip Vincent 
 telegraph department at Walham Green, in the south-western 
 district. I have seen the prisoner Thomas there. He resided 
 at Rosamond's Cottage, but I never had occasion to go to his 
 residence. I believe from telegrams received, and which he 
 has sent from our office, that he lived at Parson's Green. I 
 cannot say whether I have read the telegrams he sent in; I 
 should read them if Little, the other clerk, was engaged at the 
 instrument, and if I was engaged at the instrument Little 
 would have to read them. Thomas Wainwright has sent several 
 
 63
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Philip Vincent telegrams from the office. The last message I remember him 
 sending was in December, 1874; that is the last entered in his 
 name. I do not recollect any message which I read and sent; 
 it is Little's business to make a memorandum in the proper 
 book of messages sent out. He is not now in the service of the 
 post office, but he was during all October, 1874. If I was at 
 the instrument when a message came I should write it down, 
 but his business was to write them in the abstract book. The 
 messages are destroyed periodically. Parson's Green is in my 
 district. I know Rosamond's Cottage there. 
 
 J. A. Little JOHN ALLEN LITTLE, examined I am a pastry cook at the 
 Queen's Hotel, Norwood. I was formerly telegraph clerk, and 
 was employed at Walham Green two months. I left in Novem- 
 ber. I do not know Thomas Wainwright at all. It was my 
 duty at the close of each day to enter in the abstract book the 
 messages received for delivery in my district. All the entries 
 on 17th October in this abstract book are in my writing. The 
 last entry is " Wainwright, Dover Pier." That means for 
 Wainwright, from Dover Pier. I have no recollection of that 
 message. I enter the name of the person for whom the telegram 
 is intended in my district, and the place from whence it comes, 
 but not the name of the person who sends it. This entry shows 
 me that on 17th October a message came for Wainwright from 
 Dover Pier. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY In entering the name of the 
 sender we do not enter any initials. 
 
 K. M. Heard EDWIN MILLS HEARD, examined I am in the service of the 
 post office at Stratford Broadway. It is my duty to enter up 
 the messages in the abstract book each day. I produce the 
 abstract book in which I find an entry on 17th October, 1874 
 "Surname of the addressee, Wilmore; office of origin, Dover 
 Pier." That shows that a message was sent on that day to 
 Wilmore from Dover Pier, and that is all I know about it. 
 
 Mrs. Wells Mrs. SUSAN WELLS, examined by Mr. BESLET I am a widow, 
 and live at 12 Valentine Road, South Hackney. In 1873 I lived 
 at 14 St. Peter Street, Hackney Road, and let apartments there. 
 About the last week in October, 1873, I let my apartments to 
 Percy King, whom I identify as the elder prisoner. He brought 
 Mrs. King with him. The apartment had been taken by 
 another party for them previously. I knew the lady as Mrs. 
 King. Mr. King did not stay there ; he only visited occasion- 
 64
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 ally. He assisted in getting the luggage in that evening, and Mrs Well* 
 I asked him when he was going to return. He said, " I shall 
 not return this evening, Mrs. Wells. I leave this lady in your 
 care. Take care of her; she is to have all she requires." 
 
 Did he say who she was? He said she was Mrs. King. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you recollect what he said 
 to you? He hesitated a few minutes, and then he said she was 
 his brother's wife his sister-in-law. 
 
 Examination continued She remained till the last week in 
 April, 1874. 
 
 In September, 1873, did anything take place? Yes, the 
 birth of a child, which was named Marian. Mr. King came 
 to see her in the first or second week of her confinement, and 
 saw her in her bedroom. No one was with him then, but some 
 one came with him after. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He came and saw her occasion- 
 ally afterwards. 
 
 Examination continued You say that some time after he 
 came and another man with him? Yes, some time after Mrs. 
 King had got out of her confinement. 
 
 Did you see that man? Yes, I saw the man. He came into 
 the house. It was afternoon when Mr. King brought the friend 
 with him. It was just after Mrs. King had got out of her room. 
 He remained a short time in my parlour while Mr. King went 
 upstairs, and then he was called up. He said, " Edward, I 
 want you," and the man went up. They remained up some 
 minutes, and then Edward came down, and waited till Mr. King 
 came downstairs, when they went away together. They were 
 in the house altogether about half an hour. I saw them both 
 go out together. The same person, " Edward," came again 
 very shortly after Mrs. King had left my house to go out, and 
 Mr. King and his friend brought her home in a cab. It was 
 between twelve and one o'clock at night that they came home. 
 I let her in. Mr. King sat in the cab, and his friend saw her 
 into the hall, where the gas was burning. Mr. King never got 
 out of the cab. I heard him laugh. Lights were burning in 
 her room and all over the house. I am sure Mr. King never 
 got out of the cab. 
 
 Have you seen the other man since? Yea. I was taken to 
 the Southwark station house, and saw the other prisoner there, 
 and to the best of my belief he is the party who was brought to 
 my house by Mr. King as " Edward." I am not positive, but 
 to the best of my belief he is the party. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have said that you could 
 
 66
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs Wells not identify him? Yes; I have said that I could not identify 
 him, but I believe the other prisoner in the dock to be the party. 
 
 Examination continued Had the man you saw whiskers or 
 a beard? No; he had a slight moustache, but now he looks so 
 much older than when I saw him before that I could not say 
 whether it was him. 
 
 I am speaking of the time you saw him with Mr. King. Had 
 he then any whiskers or beard? No, he did not seem to me to 
 have any ; he had a slight moustache. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BBSLHT You are now near Christ- 
 mas, 1875, and this was soon after Christmas, 1873? Mrs. King 
 left my house after Christmas, 1873. 
 
 All the time that Henry Wainwright was going to your house 
 he never slept there, I believe? No, never all the time. 
 
 Did you speak to the man in the cab? I did not speak to 
 the man in the cab or see him at all. I made an observation to 
 Edward, " This is a very disorderly way." A gas light was 
 burning in the lobby, a single burner, inside the fanlight. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY Have you ever said when 
 you were examined before the police magistrates anything at all 
 about this person called Edward coming down a second time 
 into your parlour and waiting there for Mr. King? I believe 
 I said there what I have said here. 
 
 You say it was after Mrs. King got out from her confine- 
 ment that the two men came to see her. Was not the child 
 born in December, 1873? Yes. 
 
 I suppose she would get out then some time in February? 
 She went out on Christmas Day to be churched three weeks 
 and two days after her confinement. 
 
 It was soon after this then that the interview you speak of 
 took place? Yes. 
 
 And there was nothing to call the appearance of this person, 
 " Edward," to your mind until you saw an account of this affair 
 in the papers? No. 
 
 The first time you saw him after was when you saw him 
 sitting in the Police Court? Yes, that was the first time. 
 
 Before the magistrate you were even doubtful whether 
 "Edward" had a moustache or not? I do not know that I 
 said so ; I said he looked very young. 
 
 Did you not make use of the expression, " If Edward had a 
 moustache, it was a very slight one "? I said that to-day. 
 
 Did you make use of that expression ? Yes. 
 
 So you are not quite certain whether he had or had not a 
 moustache? I think you' have said to-day that he did not seem
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 to have any beard or whiskers? Yes. It was in the afternoon Mrs. Wells 
 that they came. I was not in the room with the man during 
 the whole of the time. I saw him go upstairs, because I said at 
 the time, " I think you are wanted. Mrs. King is calling." 
 
 You have said before the magistrate that during the whole 
 of that time the name of Mr. Frieake was never mentioned? 
 Never. 
 
 Before you gave your evidence you heard that one of the 
 men had passed by the name of Teddy Frieake? Yes. 
 
 Do you not think that circumstances might have induced 
 you to believe that the name Edward was used? I am sure 
 that Mrs. King called him Edward. 
 
 Mrs. JEMIMA FOSTER, examined I live at 3 Sidney Square, Mrs. Foster 
 Commercial Road, and have lived there since Christmas, 1873. 
 My daughter Lucy lives with me. I know Henry Wainwright; 
 he came to me as Mr. King somewhere about May, 1874. I had 
 " Apartments " in my window. He came in and said, " I see 
 you have apartments here to let ; would you mind taking a lady, 
 her nurse, and two children ? " After some conversation I agreed 
 to do so. I said I could not let them at less than 1 a week. 
 He agreed to that. I said, " I suppose it is Mrs. King? " I 
 cannot be positive that he said his name was King, but all his 
 transactions were in that name. He did not say whether the 
 lady was his wife or not, as I know of, but she always passed 
 as his wife. I fancy he said she was his wife. I am almost 
 sure he did. I asked what reference I could have; he said, " I 
 can give you a deposit if you wish it, and a reference." He 
 did not give me any reference; he paid me a deposit instead. 
 He said he should not come very often, that he was a traveller, 
 and his business called him very much away from home. He 
 came next morning and said, "Is Mrs. King come yet?" I 
 said, "No, she has not been here." He then left, and came 
 again about eleven o'clock with Mrs. King in a cab to look at 
 the apartments. The arrangement was then concluded, and 
 she came in the evening with the nurse and two children and 
 Mr. Rogers. They brought their luggage with them. The 
 nurse stayed about seven weeks. Mrs. King stayed till llth 
 September. While she was there Henry Wainwright never came 
 to see her never to come in. I saw him once at the door. 
 Rogers used to come very frequently, and most times he went 
 upstairs to Mrs. King. Miss Wilmore used to come to see her 
 very often, almost every Sunday, and about the end of August 
 she came to stay altogether. Whilst Mrs. King was with me 
 
 67
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs. Foster I remember a gentleman coming to see her about twice or three 
 times. 
 
 How was he announced? Once I announced him as Mr. 
 Frieake. I think that was the second time. On the first 
 occasion Mrs. King was expecting him, and he went upstairs 
 without being announced. I did not hear his name mentioned 
 after he went upstairs. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How did you first know about 
 Mr. Frieake ? By Mrs. King saying a gentleman named Frieake 
 was going to get her furniture for two rooms. 
 
 Did he give his name to you as Mr. Frieake? Yes; on the 
 second visit he told me his name was Frieake. 
 
 Examination continued He asked whether Mrs. King was 
 at home, and said it was Mr. Frieake. I first knew about Mr. 
 Frieake,. because Mrs. King said that there was a gentleman 
 of the name of Frieake going to give her furniture for two 
 rooms, and he gave his name as Frieake when he went upstairs ; 
 that was the second time. I think the first time he went up 
 without giving his name. It was when I showed him upstairs 
 that he gave the name of Frieake, and I opened the door and 
 said, " Mr. Frieake." I did not know that he was the gentle- 
 man who was going to give her the furniture till he gave his 
 name. I did not know it on the first occasion. It was the same 
 gentleman that came on both occasions. She said that he was 
 going to get her furniture, not to get rid of it, and she even 
 said that he was coming to get her to choose what colour she 
 would have. On one of the two occasions that he came he 
 brought a bottle of champagne, and Mrs. King asked me for 
 some champagne glasses, and I went out and borrowed some. 
 I saw him bring in the bottle under his arm or in his hand in a 
 paper; it was a champagne bottle. I saw it next day up in the 
 room ; I think it was a quart bottle. I got three glasses at the 
 Princess Royal, nearly opposite, but only two were used. I saw 
 nothing more of Mr. Frieake that day; he went out shortly 
 afterwards. I think that was the second time he came. 
 
 On another occasion after that, I can't remember the date, 
 about ten o'clock at night, there was a knocking at the door 
 by one of my neighbours on account of a little disturbance in 
 the street. I went out and found Mrs. King with Mr. King, as 
 I thought it was, and another gentleman ; I think it was the same 
 gentleman that came before, Mr. Frieake. I only just saw 
 them with a passing glance. I am certain it was the same gentle- 
 man that came with the champagne. I think Mrs. King was 
 rather intoxicated ; she seemed very much excited. I asked her to
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 come in with me, and she said I had no business to interfere with Mrs. Foster 
 her and her husband, and, of course, I came in again directly. 
 She appeared to be quarrelling with the gentlemen. They left 
 her on the step of the door, and knocked, and rang, and went 
 away, and she ran down the street after them. I went to the 
 corner and said, "Do come in, Mrs. King." One of the 
 gentlemen was standing on the corner of the kerb, and the other 
 a little distance from him. At last Miss Wilmore went and 
 got her in. Next day I gave her notice. I told her I should 
 like her to leave that day week, which, I think, was on the 
 Wednesday following. She asked me to let her stay two dayo 
 longer, and I did so. That would be the llth. 
 
 Champagne was brought on two occasions, once a pint 
 bottle and once a quart bottle. Mr. Frieake brought it, not 
 the same day it was some days before, about a fortnight before 
 Mrs. King left, I think, the first time he called. I am almost 
 sure it was the last time he called that he brought the pint, 
 and the other time he brought the quart. He went out for it 
 after he came in. I am almost certain it was the small bottle 
 that he brought last, now I come to think the first was a large 
 bottle. It was a week afterwards, I think, that he brought the 
 second one. 
 
 Except on this one occasion Mrs. King was a well-conducted 
 person; I never saw anything wrong in her. Twice before, I 
 think, she came home very much excited, but nothing to speak 
 of, a little the worse perhaps for a glass of anything. On other 
 occasions she conducted herself quite as a lady, as we thought. 
 Once, about a month before, she came home about nine or ten 
 o'clock in the evening ; she had been out the whole afternoon, 
 and she was a little more talkative, and made herself a little 
 more free with us, but that was all. She seemed very fond 
 indeed of her children. They both slept in her bed when she 
 had not got the nurse ; before that one slept with the nurse. She 
 left on Friday, llth September, and she paid me all that was 
 due to me. We parted on friendly terms; we shook hands, and 
 I bade her good-bye, and watched her round the corner of the 
 street. I never saw her again alive. She had with her a small 
 paper parcel, which she carried on her finger with a piece of 
 twine, and a new umbrella. I don't know what was in the 
 parcel. Miss Wilmore left later on the same day with the 
 children, about six or seven o'clock. 
 
 I saw Thomas Wainwright at the Borough Session-house. I 
 was taken to see him. I had seen him before at Leman Street, 
 but I could not recognise him then. When he was in the 
 
 60
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mrs. Foiter Borough I thought he was the same gentleman that brought 
 the champagne; he had very little whiskers at that time. I did 
 not notice whether he had any moustache. I only just let him 
 in at the door as he passed through the passage, and I could 
 hardly say. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT Your mind was not carried 
 back to the taking of the lodgings in April, 1874, until it was 
 stated that some remains were found, and that Henry Wain- 
 wright was in custody? It was not. I saw Wainwright when 
 he took the lodgings, and when the lady took possession. He 
 came three times altogether twice upon the day the apart- 
 ments were taken, and once before. 
 
 As to this matter at the door, you went out to see who 
 was knocking, as you did not wish any scandal with regard to 
 your lodgings? Yes. 
 
 And, I think, you said it lasted scarcely two minutes alto- 
 gether? Yes. 
 
 Was it half -past ten at night? Quite that. It was some time 
 in August or September. After I returned Miss Wilmore went 
 out, and some time afterwards she brought Harriet Lane in. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did you know when you saw 
 one gentleman of these two that he was the person who took the 
 lodgings? I did. I patted him on the shoulder, and said, "Mr. 
 King, I will go and try to get her in," and she said, " How dare 
 you interfere with me and my husband ? " 
 
 By Mr. BESLBT You never saw Mr. King who took the 
 lodgings in April until that night if you saw him that night? 
 I did not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY The person who passed as 
 Mr. Frieake was the only gentleman that called on Mrs. King. 
 I saw nothing more of him after llth September, 1874. I 
 N^ don't know whether my daughter let him in once. I think I 
 let him in most times; I have not said that Mrs. King let him 
 in once. She was at the top of the stairs and asked him to come 
 up, and that made me pronounce his name. There are only 
 about a dozen steps from my passage. The stairs are right 
 opposite the door, about 4 or 5 feet, and about ten or twelve 
 stepe up to the first floor. It was quite evening; I think it 
 was gaslight. She said, "Come up," and he stepped up at 
 once. That was the only occasion on which I had to announce 
 him. 
 
 I heard of the discovery of the body on the Monday morning, 
 I think not till Mr. Forster came. I think I was taken to 
 the Leman Street station, after Thomas Wainwright was taken 
 
 70
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 into custody. I did not know that I was taken to see the man Mrs. Foster 
 who had passed himself off as Mr. Frieake. I don't believe I 
 had heard that. I was shown some men together in the police 
 yard; I was told to have a good look, and I did have a good 
 look, and I could not recognise anybody there. It was not till 
 I saw Thomas Wainwright sitting in the dock at the Police 
 Court with the other prisoner that I began to have any recollec- 
 tion of him. I then said he was about the size and stature of 
 the man. I said he looked very much like the gentleman, and 
 I believed very possibly he was the man. I said there the man 
 had very light whiskers and a very light moustache, and I have 
 said to-day that he had rather light whiskers. That was my 
 impression at the time. The only time I speak to was his 
 coming on one occasion when Mrs. King was at the top of the 
 stairs, and said, " Step up, Mr. Frieake." I asked his name, 
 and announced him. On the night I went out and saw the 
 disturbance I saw two men moving, and I am positive one was 
 Mr. King, who I spoke to. I came back and saw nothing more. 
 
 JAMES HUMPHRIES, examined I am a licensed victualler, and J - Humphries 
 keep the Old Red Lion, 339 Strand. I was proprietor of the 
 Princess Royal public-house, 1 and 2 Sidney Square, in August 
 and September. That is immediately opposite Mrs. Foster's. 
 I knew the prisoners. I have known Henry six or seven years, 
 and Thomas four or five years. Some time in the autumn of 
 last year I saw both the prisoners in my house together. The 
 last time I saw them was Saturday, 5th September. I saw 
 them only once before at the Princess Royal, about a week 
 previously. They were together on that occasion. I fix the 
 date by my day-book. I had to give the necessary notice for 
 the transfer of the licence, but I do not fix it by that date, but 
 by an entry I made in reference to lending some champagne 
 glasses. I remember the circumstances ; it was on 5th Septem- 
 ber, and the two prisoners were at my house from four to six 
 or seven o'clock. They smoked two cigars, and had some brandy 
 and soda divided. My barman in my presence supplied them 
 with a pint bottle of champagne first, and then with a quart, 
 within an interval of half an hour or an hour. The pint bottle 
 was taken away, I do not remember who by, but it must have 
 been by one of them, because they were the only persons in 
 the private bar. I did not see it taken away by them, but I 
 infer that it must have been ; I saw it on the counter waiting 
 to be taken. After the champagne was taken away Mrs. Foster 
 came to borrow some champagne glasses. There must have 
 
 71
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 J. Humphries been two or three, because I made this memorandum to remind 
 my storekeeper that our cabinets were short of champagne 
 glasses. Within an hour I should imagine after Mrs. Foster 
 borrowed the glasses, Thomas Wainwright had a quart bottle of 
 champagne, which he took away with him and did not return. 
 Henry was not there when the second bottle was taken away. 
 On the same night, between nine and ten o'clock, I saw both 
 the prisoners and several other people outside Mrs. Foster's 
 house, when a disturbance happened. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am able to fix it as 5th Sep- 
 tember, because after handing over the champagne glasses I had 
 to wait to see some one respecting the transfer of my licence, 
 and I had to make my way west and to come back, and then it 
 was 10.15, and it takes me half an hour to get from house to 
 house. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBY I was keeping one public- 
 house at that time, but I have four, my own property. One is 
 in Long Acre, one in the Strand, one in Sidney Square, and one 
 in the Whitechapel Road. The licences are held by different 
 people, one of whom is my brother. I conduct the business by 
 means of managers, who are my servants, and I go about from 
 one to the other, giving all my time and attention to them. I 
 had had the Princess Royal about two years, and was going to 
 transfer the licence to my brother's name, which was done on 
 28th September. I devoted my time principally to the Princess 
 Alice. I was transferring Mr. Forster, my billiard-marker, to 
 the position of manager. I had two barmen and two barmaids. 
 The person who was to succeed to the licence was not there. 
 The transfer of the licence does not mean the transfer of the 
 public-house, but a transfer from one servant of mine to another 
 servant of mine. It was about to go into the name of Robert 
 Humphries, my brother, and until the licence was transferred 
 Forster was manager. He is not here, nor are the barmen that 
 I know of. I did not go before the magistrate on this charge, 
 and I never gave an intimation to any one that I could give 
 evidence. Inspector M'Donald called on me four or five times, I 
 think. I cannot tell when he called first, but to the best of my 
 knowledge it was a fortnight or three weeks previous to my 
 having to go before the grand jury last session. I went to the 
 Treasury a fortnight or three weeks before that. Mr. M 'Donald 
 had an appointment to go with me to the Treasury, which I did 
 not keep, and another which I did. He took me there. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I first heard of this matter 
 by seeing it in the Daily Telegraph. It did not occur to me that 
 I should go and give some information. I did not know at that 
 
 72
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 time that there was any question about Thomas Wainwright j. Humphries 
 being Frieake. I read everything, and still I did not go to the 
 police. Mrs. Foster had been examined at the Police Court at 
 that time, and I had seen about the champagne glasses. I had 
 seen Thomas Wainwright several times before August, 1874. I 
 had seen him with his brother Henry in my public-house in 
 Whitechapel Road, but not very frequently. That public-house 
 is conducted by my son ; it is one of the four between which I 
 distribute my energies. I am there very frequently. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL The prisoners both 
 went away with the pint bottle of champagne, and came back 
 for a quart bottle, and did not return again. I cannot tell at 
 what time Thomas went out with the quart bottle, but to the 
 best of my memory it was about half an hour to an hour after- 
 wards. I was just leaving my premises that night to go to the 
 West End when the disturbance happened. I am positive as to 
 the date. 
 
 [The following letter was here put in: "Mrs. King, 3 
 Sidney Square, Mile-End Road. Dear Pet, E. F. is coming 
 down at seven to-night. He will give you a call, with a message 
 from me. Yours, &c., P. K." The postmark on the envelope 
 was September 5, 1874, London, N.E.] 
 
 Mrs. AMELIE STANLEY, examined by Mr. BEASLEY I live at Mrs. Stanley 
 Bow. I am the wife of George Edward Stanley, a master 
 mariner. I am related to Mrs. Foster, of Sidney Square. Last 
 August or beginning of September, 1874, I was on a visit one 
 evening at Sidney Square. I knew there was a lady living there 
 named King. I remember a gentleman calling when I was there, 
 and I heard his name announced by Mrs. Foster as Mr. Frieake. 
 He remained in the hall while Mrs. Foster went up to announce 
 him. I was sitting opposite the parlour door, which was open. 
 I saw him all the while he was there. He was standing there 
 for two or three minutes. The gas was burning over his head. 
 His hat was on. After being announced, he went upstairs, and 
 I did not see him again. 
 
 Did you observe whether he had any beard or whiskers 1 He 
 had a moustache, but no whiskers. 
 
 You have been shown the prisoner Thomas Wainwright at 
 the Police Court. What do you say as to him being the man 
 announced as Frieake? He is the man I saw, to the best of my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY When Mrs. Foster went up- 
 stairs, Miss Foster was left in the room with me. We were 
 sitting on chairs. We were talking when the knock came. We 
 
 73
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs. Stanley were not doing needlework. Mrs. Foster went to the door, and 
 then went up to announce him. I can't say whether she called 
 him to come upstairs or came down and showed him up. 
 
 Your attention was not called to the circumstance again till 
 you heard of this affair? No. This was in August, 1874, and 
 my attention was not called to it until 4th October, 1875. 
 
 You never saw the man before that night or afterwards until 
 you saw him getting into the dock? No. 
 
 You had had conversation with Mrs. Foster when you were 
 taken to the Police Court, and you knew that the man who had 
 been passing himself off as Frieake was one of the persons on 
 his trial ? I did not know that. 
 
 You don't allege for a moment that you have ever seen Henry 
 Wain wright 1 No. 
 
 I think you said at the Police Court that, " to the best of my 
 belief, the prisoner Thomas is the man. He had a moustache, a 
 fair one, and no beard or whiskers." Did you say that? I 
 don't remember. I said he had a moustache and a clean-shaven 
 face, to the best of my belief. 
 
 Did you not repeat the expression that he had a fair mous- 
 tache? Have you no recollection whether you mentioned so 
 important a particular as that? To the best of my belief I 
 did not. 
 
 Did you, in cross-examination at the Police Court, say that 
 you had read the case in the papers, that the next time you saw 
 him was in the dock, and that you knew the man was supposed 
 to be Teddy Frieake? I don't remember that. 
 
 You went down to the Treasury to have your evidence taken ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And you had not up to that time seen the man who was in 
 custody? Yes, I had. 
 
 Were you down two days at the Police Court? Yes. 
 
 You went down to the Court, saw the two men in the dock, 
 then gave your statement to the Treasury? Yes; but I was 
 fetched to give my evidence. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL The man who was 
 announced as Frieake had a medium moustache as to length ; it 
 was not dark. 
 
 John Baylis JOHN BATLIS, examined I live at 149 Whitechapel Road. I 
 am an oil and colour man, and, amongst other things, I deal in 
 chloride of lime. I knew Henry Wainwright, carrying on busi- 
 ness in the Whitechapel Road. On 10th September last year 
 an order for chloride of lime was given to me. I do not know 
 who gave it. It was either from Henry Wainwright or Rogers. 
 74
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 The quantity was half a hundredweight. It was packed in a John Baylta 
 box, and I believe it was sent by one of my men to No. 84. It 
 came to 7s. 6d. The box in which it was packed was sent down 
 from Wainwright's. It was not paid for. I never sold any 
 chloride of lime to Wainwright before. I do not know whether 
 it was sent by one of my men or one of his. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT When we sell small quanti- 
 ties of chloride of lime for cash they are not entered at all, but I 
 book it if it is not paid for. I do not profess to keep in mind 
 all the numerous transactions in my shop. Mine is a ready- 
 money business. My books have not got into arrears ; that is an 
 error. It is simply this rough entry-book; mine being a cash 
 trade, very little is entered in it. It has not been posted for 
 nearly two years. There may be a few entries in it besides mine. 
 Sometimes my father comes to town and makes a few entries. 
 Whenever I take an order, it is put upon a piece of paper, and I 
 enter from that. I enter what is filed, but there is not always 
 an order on the file, I am sorry to say. There was no order 
 in this case, simply because I executed the order myself. I will 
 not swear that there was no written order. My shopman also 
 serves in the shop, and a second hand who acts as carman, and a 
 youth. If either of them received an order, it would be their 
 duty to put it on the file, and I should enter it in the day-book, 
 but that order was executed by myself. I do not recollect 
 whether it was given by Rogers or Mr. Wainwright. I do not 
 think an interval has ever occurred between a transaction and 
 my entering it. I do not think such a thing could happen while 
 I am on the premises, but I am not infallible. I cannot tell 
 what might happen, for I only know what does happen. I am 
 speaking of a matter about which there has been an interval 
 of twelve months. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL To the best of my 
 belief, I made all the entries on the same day, 10th September 
 They are all in my writing. It varies because sometimes the 
 book is in this position and sometimes in that, and my hands 
 are hard at work, and not always so steady at one time as at 
 another. 
 
 Adjourned till to-morrow. 
 
 78
 
 Fourth Day Thursday, 25th November, 1875. 
 
 C. Titienf CHABLES TITIENS, examined I live at 84 Berners Street, 
 Whitechapel, and am in the employment of Messrs. Ashford & 
 Green, of Stratford. I was formerly a porter in the service of 
 Henry Wainwright. I went into the service in July, I believe, 
 and I was in the service three years last July. About the middle 
 of September, 1874, I remember taking a case to Mr. Baylis. 
 Henry Wainwright told me to take it there for some chloride of 
 lime. I did so, and left it there. I do not know how long West 
 was living at No. 215. I was in the habit of going to 215 White- 
 chapel Road for the purpose of packing goods in the warehouse 
 there. I noticed a smell at the back part of the premises about 
 June. I noticed it for about a month before I left. I called 
 Mr. Wainwright's attention to it, and told him there was a 
 stench, and asked to have the ashes removed. I thought it came 
 from there. He said he would. They were not removed. It 
 was a kind of faint smell ; I could not say exactly what it was. I 
 bought two halfpennyworths of chloride of lime, and paid for 
 it myself, and sprinkled it over the ashes in powder. The door 
 leading into Vine Court had two bolts to it a.nd one lock. It 
 was always kept locked and bolted. I used to get in from the 
 front entrance. On one occasion I saw it open when some 
 fixtures were being removed. They went to Mr. Martin's, and 
 they were taken out by that door. I believe that was about two 
 months before I left. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLEY I did not notice the smell 
 after putting down the second quantity of chloride of lime. I 
 did not hear Henry Wainwright give directions for the rubbish 
 and ashes to be removed. They had been accumulating for a 
 long time. There was quite a cartload, if not more. It was all 
 ashes. It was not removed when I left in July, 1875. The 
 Rogers were living there at the time upstairs ; they went out in 
 April. I worked at No. 84, and I had to go to No. 215 as 
 well. When the Rogers were living at No. 84 there were com- 
 plaints of the smell of the drains at No. 215. I did not notice 
 any smell at No. 84 myself. Rogers complained of the smell 
 of the drains at No. 215 before he went to live there. Mr. West 
 was living there at thai time. That was before July, 1874. I 
 am sure it was Rogers who complained, and West as well. I do 
 76
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 not know how long ago West was living at No. 215. I do not c.Tltiens 
 know whether complaint was made of the drains at the time West 
 was there. I never heard of complaints made of the drains at 
 No. Si. 1 had forgotten about the taking of the case to Mr. 
 Baylis until Detective Forster came to me about 23rd September 
 of this year. He asked me if I remembered it. That was how it 
 arose. I was working at No. 215 usually all the time the place 
 was opened. 
 
 I remember the things being brought from No. 84 and being 
 loaded at No. 215 for the purpose of going to Mr. Frieake's sale- 
 rooms. I believe only two lots were sent there. I remember a 
 van coming one evening about 6.30, and it came the following 
 morning to take the rest of the things. I was there with Rogers 
 in the evening when the van came. I do not remember Vostius 
 being there. I did not notice how long it took putting the goods 
 out into the van. We shut up from about 7.30 to 8 o'clock. 
 Very likely that evening we may have been later than usual. 
 Eight o'clock was my usual time for leaving work. When it 
 became dark the gas was lighted at No. 215. It was dark by 
 eight o'clock in September. We had not the gas lighted when 
 the goods were being loaded in the van. We had finished by 
 daylight. We worked by gaslight when it was needed, but on 
 this evening we had finished before we had occasion to light the 
 gas. I and Vostius generally packed the goods at No. 215. 
 That was the ordinary place for packing the goods. Saturdays 
 were not very busy days. From July to November, 1874, Mr. 
 Wainwright generally made it a practice to clear up on Saturday. 
 He always paid us our wages on Saturday. What I mean by 
 clearing up is getting the place ready for Monday morning's 
 packing. I used to leave before Rogers. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. POLAND I was employed at No. 84, 
 and used to go to No. 215 to do any packing that there might 
 be. If there was no packing to do, the premises would be shut 
 up. Sometimes they shut up earlier at No. 215. The goods 
 were made up at No. 84, and what were required for orders were 
 sent over to No. 215 to be packed. No. 84 was the retail shop. 
 When we had finished our packing at No. 215 the doors would 
 be closed until we went there to pack again ; they would not be 
 open all day long. There were some days at the latter part, 
 just before I left, when No. 215 was not opened at all. The 
 two big doors of the warehouse were kept closed. The van 
 that came on the evening that I speak of came to No. 215. I 
 did not notice it at No. 84. The goods were put into the van 
 at No. 215 ; I do not remember how long the van was there. I 
 believe the premises were shut up before 7.30 or 8 o'clock. I 
 
 77
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 C. Titieas have no clear memory about it. After the fire at No. 84, the 
 business ceased there, and the goods that were not consumed 
 were taken to No. 215. The lotting of the goods sent for sale 
 was before the fire. 
 
 G. W. Rogers GEORGE WILLIAM ROGERS, examined by Mr. POLAND I live at 
 11 Teddington Terrace, Tredegar Road, Bow. I was formerly 
 in the service of Henry Wainwright. I entered it on llth 
 August, 1873, and remained till April, 1875. During that time 
 he had premises at 84 and 215 Whitechapel Road. Up to July, 
 1874, Mr. West lived at No. 215. From that time until 
 November, 1875, they were not used as a residence. Shortly 
 before the fire I went to live there with my wife, and continued 
 to live there till April of this year. Before going there I had 
 been living at No. 84 with my wife, from July till the beginning 
 of November. I knew Mrs. King. I first saw her at 8 St. Peter 
 Street, at Mrs. Wells'. Henry Wainwright asked me to take a 
 letter with some money in it in February, 1874, I believe. He 
 said, " Will you take a letter for me to Mrs. King? Say it is 
 from Mr. King, and that there is 5 in it, and obtain a receipt." 
 
 Did he say who Mrs. King was? No. He gave me the 
 letter with the address written on it to " Mrs. King." I took 
 it to the lodgings and saw Mrs. King, and gave it to her. 
 
 Did she write a receipt? No; Miss Wilmore wrote the 
 receipt, and next morning I gave it to Wainwright. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I suppose Mrs. King signed it? 
 No, I think not. 
 
 Examination continued Was it a stamped receipt ? Yes ; 
 and I found the stamp. That was the first time I had seen Miss 
 Wilmore. 
 
 Did you go afterwards to the same lodgings? I think on 
 two occasions afterwards, with letters or messages from Henry 
 Wainwright. I usually left them in the tea hour. He did not 
 say what the letters were. 
 
 Do you remember Mrs. King leaving these lodgings? I do. 
 I went by Wainwright's directions the day she left. He told 
 me to get a cab and go and take Mrs. King and two children 
 to 3 Sidney Square. He gave me 10s. to pay expenses. That 
 was in the evening early in May, I think. 
 
 Did Miss Wilmore go with you in the cab? No, she did 
 not go with us. I went as directed, got a cab, and took Mrs. 
 King and the two children, and we picked up the nurse at the 
 corner of a street in Bethnal Green Road. We then went to 
 3 Sidney Square, where I helped to get the luggage upstairs, 
 
 78
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 and then left. I saw Henry Wainwright next morning, and G. W. Rogers 
 told him what I had done.. After that I used to go to Sidney 
 Square. I went four or five times with money and letters from 
 Wainwright. I saw Mrs. King there, and took on one occasion 
 5, and on another 2, and gave them to her. I did not get 
 receipts for these. 
 
 On the occasion of giving her the 2, did she say any- 
 thing? Yes; she threw it on the table and said, " That is no 
 use to me, aa I have to pay my rent." 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did she appear to be dissatis- 
 fied? Yes. 
 
 You cannot, for the purpose of evidence, tell us what she 
 said, but if you made any statement to Wainwright about it, 
 you can repeat what you said to him? I told him she was dis- 
 satisfied, and he said, "Oh, all right; never mind." 
 
 Tell us what you told him she had said to you ? She told 
 me it was not enough to pay her rent. 
 
 I don't want what she told you, but what you told him? 
 I said to Mr. Henry Wainwright she was dissatisfied with the 
 amount, as she had to pay her rent, and he replied, " Oh, all 
 right," or " I will see to it," or some short answer of that kind. 
 
 Did you go to her again? Once more. 
 
 Did you take any money then ? No. 
 
 Examination continued On the occasion that you went 
 without taking any money, did you go with a message? I did, 
 to say that he would send to her shortly. I don't think he said 
 anything else. Oh, yes; he said when he got his business settled 
 with Mr. Sawyer he would send to her shortly. Mr. Sawyer had 
 been in partnership with him, and there had been disputes. I 
 think it was some time in July. It must have been the com- 
 mencement of July that I took the 2. 
 
 On one occasion when you went there, did Mrs. King show 
 you a telegram ? Yes. She handed it to me, but I left it there. 
 I afterwards saw Henry Wainwright and told him, " Mrs. King 
 has received a telegram stating that I and you have gone out 
 of town. You know that is false." 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did you tell him from whom 
 she said the telegram had come? She said it had come from 
 Mr. Wainwright, and I said to him, " You know that is false. 
 You know I have not been out of town." 
 
 Did he deny the fact of having gent the telegram? No. 
 He said, " Oh, never mind," or something short, and I did not 
 trouble myself further about it. This was about the middle of 
 
 79
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 G. W, Rogers July. I think that was the last occasion I went to Sidney 
 Square. 
 
 Examination continued Have you seen Mrs. King at 84 
 Whitechapel Road? Yes. I saw her there at least a dozen 
 times while I was in Wainwright's employment. She used to 
 come into the shop, and I have seen her and Wainwright together 
 there frequently. 
 
 Do you remember hearing some conversation between Mrs. 
 King and Wainwright on the last occasion? Yes. She saw 
 him in the front of the shop. I was sitting in the counting- 
 house, and saw them apparently very quarrelsome. I did not 
 hear what passed, but I judged from their gesticulation. That 
 was the last time I saw her. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Can you fix the date of that? 
 I cannot. It was some time in August. 
 
 Examination continued I remember on one occasion Mrs. 
 King being ill at No. 84; that was at the commencement of 
 August, 1874. I saw her for a moment. My wife told me of 
 her being ill; I only knew it from my wife. No one lived at 
 the premises, No. 215, from July to November, 1874. During 
 that period the premises were locked up, and the keys kept at 
 No. 84, behind the counting-house door, and the counting-house 
 was not locked up at night. There was a broom rack on wheels 
 with a door to it, and the key of that door was always kept by 
 Henry Wainwright. It was a sliding broom rack which formed 
 a passage to the dwelling-house when the shop was shut up. 
 It was a partition with a door in it, and that locked up the 
 counting-house and the shop. Henry Wainwright always took 
 home that key with him. When I came in the morning I could 
 not get to No. 215 to do any work there, and I have sometimes 
 said to him jokingly, " I shall fine you if you are not earlier " ; 
 that was when I wanted the place open. I remember in Septem- 
 ber last his speaking to me about some chloride of lime ; I think 
 it was on the 10th. He asked me to inquire of Mr. Baylis the 
 price of chloride of lime, that he had got an order from Southend 
 for half a hundredweight. I went and inquired at Mr. Baylis, 
 which is only a few hundred yards from No. 84, and took him 
 the price. I forget the quotation, but he said it would do. I 
 don't think I ordered it. Henry Wainwright only dealt in 
 chloride of lime for the police contract when he had it, which 
 was some time afterwards. The police contract was for small 
 stores. We only obtained that contract in the early part of 
 this year. At that time he did not deal in chloride of lime.
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 He was the manager there, and I was the chief man ; I did not G. W. Rogers 
 know of any customer at Southend. 
 
 On the day after the shop ehut up, I saw a box on the 
 premises. I saw it arrive from Baylis's. That was the same 
 day I had inquired the price. After the shop was closed, which 
 was at eight o'clock, it was brought in a hand truck and placed 
 in the passage by Baylis's man. I saw that done. I could tell 
 by the smell that it contained chloride of lime; it was so 
 pungent. My wife saw it, and spoke to me about it. It 
 remained there during the night, and next morning before the 
 shop was opened I saw it lying in the passage. I did not see 
 it removed, and do not know who removed it, or where it went ; 
 I missed it while I was upstairs at breakfast; that would be 
 about 8.30 or 9 o'clock; when I came down it was gone. Henry 
 Wainwright came to business sometimes at 8.15, 8.30, 8.45. 
 
 There were complaints of the drains at No. 84 while I was 
 living there. No chloride of lime was used for them to my 
 knowledge while I was there. The premises at No. 215 at that 
 time were only used specially for large orders. Sometimes 
 nobody went into the premises for days, only for opening and 
 shutting them ; they were opened and shut every day, and kept 
 open till the time of closing at No. 84. The shutters were 
 taken down, so that there would be light for any packing that 
 was wanted, but the place was thoroughly closed. The doors 
 would not be open ; we had the keys at No. 84. At the time 
 I and my wife were living at No. 215, I noticed a smell at the 
 end of the shop. I could not say when I first perceived it; I 
 should say shortly after Christmas. I put it down to the 
 accumulation of ashes and vegetable refuse. We had no dust- 
 hole there. I spoke about it to Henry Wainwright. I told him 
 the smell was very bad, and the ashes had accumulated. He 
 said, " When Ladbrooks' men pass get them to clear it but." 
 Ladbrooks are brushmakers; they used to burn all the refuse 
 in their furnace. They were cleared out on one occasion. I 
 smelt the unpleasant smell again as they accumulated. I only 
 spoke about the smell on one occasion to my knowledge. 
 
 At the latter end of July, 1874, Henry Wainwright showed 
 me a revolver in the counting-house at No. 84. He took it from 
 his desk; it was in a green baize bag; it had five or six 
 chambers I could not say which and it was about 9 or 10 
 inches long, including the barrel. He asked me to pawn it. 
 He said, " I am short this week. I bought it of Sawyer; I gave 
 6 for it. Get 2 10s. on it." He did not tell me where to 
 pawn it. It had no case to it. I said these sort of things usually 
 
 o 81
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 G. W. Rogers had a case of fittings, and I did not believe they would take it 
 in. He said, " Yes, they will." I then left No. 84 and took 
 the pistol with me in the green baize bag to a pawnbroker in 
 Mile-End Road. I am not sure which pawnbroker it was, as 
 there are two close together. I offered it in pledge, but was only 
 offered 15s., so I took it back to No. 84, and told Henry Wain- 
 wright eo. He put it in his desk, and I have not seen it since. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET When the shutters at No. 
 215 were taken down it left a large amount of glass, so that 
 you could see into the warehouse, the whole 110 feet to the 
 end, and owing to the three glass doors at the end of the 
 warehouse it was very easy to see. In the performance of my 
 duties I was going about London getting orders for goods, and 
 the principal part of my time was spent away from No. 84. 
 I put the prices into the police contract in November, 1874, 
 previous to which I inquired at a great number of wholesale 
 places the prices of different articles, and a letter was written 
 to inquire the price of chloride of lime. I fancy that the order 
 for the chloride of lime was written on special order paper by 
 one of the clerks. It should have been in the ordinary routine 
 of business, but I did not give it myself. Any statement of mine 
 that it was a special order paper was because that was the proper 
 course. I did not say it as a fact ; we are all liable to mistakes. 
 I said at the Police Court that it should have been done. I think 
 my expression was, " I think the order was written on special 
 order paper by one of our clerks." 
 
 Did you ever until this hour mention the word " 10th" in 
 reference to the order spoken to as being given on 10th Septem- 
 ber, 1874? I think so. 
 
 Did you ever swear until to-day that you saw Baylis's man 
 bring the package into the passage of No. 84 1 I think I may 
 swear I did. I do swear I did. 
 
 At the Police Court did you say, " I don't know what became 
 of it, for I did not see it in the morning " ? I believe I did. 
 
 Did you ever swear until to-day that you saw the package 
 in the passage before you went up to breakfast, and that when 
 you came down it was gone? I think not. I was discharged 
 by Mr. Sawyer in April, 1874, and kept by Mr. Wainwright. I 
 entered his service about 12th July, 1874. I was not in his 
 service between April and July, 1874. When difficulties in 
 business arose through Mr. Behrend's claim, I did not negotiate 
 with Mr. Behrend to take over 215 Whitechapel Road. Some- 
 thing was mentioned about my becoming proprietor and he to
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 supply the capital. It was done to benefit Mr. Wainwright G. W. Rogers 
 until the fire action was settled. 
 
 Were you engaged as a " travelling agent in advance" for 
 a dramatic company? I have been on two occasions. 
 
 The first was in 1869? I think it was. We went through 
 Yorkshire, and were a good deal about the north. 
 
 Were you then in the service of Miss Edith Sandford? No; 
 I was in the employ of Mr. Charles Wood, and Miss Edith 
 Sandford was the principal member of the company. 
 
 Was your wife, Susannah Clementina, formerly Susannah 
 Clementina Dolby, with you? No. 
 
 You were married to her on 26th June, 1859, in the Parish 
 Church at St. George's, Bloomsbury, I think? Yes. At least 
 it is eighteen years ago; I do not know the date. 
 
 Have you seen your wife recently? I have not. I heard 
 something about her six months ago. 
 
 Do you know whether she is now alive? I do not. 
 Did you rejoin the dramatic company in May, 1873? Yes, 
 at Leicester. 
 
 And did the witness, Mrs. Jane Rogers, also join you there? 
 She did. 
 
 Were you going under the name of King then? I was. 
 That was my mother's name. 
 
 When were you married to Jane Rogers? In April, 1872. 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNET-GENERAL How old were you 
 when you were married to Susannah Clementina Dolby? 
 Fifteen years of age. 
 
 How old was she? The eame age as myself. 
 Were you married with or without the consent of your 
 parents? Without the consent of either. 
 
 And you did not live happily together? Certainly not. 
 You ultimately were married to Jane Rogers, your present 
 wife, on Hth April, 1872? Yes. 
 
 Before you married her, did you ask legal advice? I did. 
 As agent for the dramatic company, you went in advance 
 to the various towns where they were going to perform in order 
 to make arrangements for them? Yes. 
 
 Was Miss Davis, your wife, one of the company? Certainly 
 not. 
 
 When you were travelling agent you took the name of 
 King? Yes, on Mr. Wood's, my employer's, advice. He 
 was the manager of the company. 
 
 Did Henry Wainwright know that you travelled as King! 
 No; I told him I had travelled with Mr. Wood. As agent in
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 G. W. Rogers advance I was known as King; as Mr. "Wood's secretary, by my 
 own name. In fact, the two names were used to fill up the 
 playbill. When I joined Wainwright I referred him to the 
 manager of the dramatic company for a reference if he required 
 it. 
 
 You were asked whether you ever said before that Baylis's 
 man brought a box of chloride of lime. When you were before 
 the magistrate, did you say it was delivered after the shop was 
 closed, and also this, " I was living at No. 84. It was brought 
 in a hand-cart, and I took it in. I know it came from Baylis. I 
 don't know what became of it " ? I believe I did. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I don't attach much importance to 
 the actual accordance between what a witness says when he 
 comes forward at a trial and what he says at a police office or, 
 rather, what he is reported to say. I know how difficult it is, 
 even writing as fast as I do and I believe, with the exception of 
 shorthand writers, I write as fast as any one to take down the 
 exact words of a witness when that is attempted at the police 
 office, or by the coroner or coroner's clerk. As long as you get 
 the substance, you ought not to attach too great importance to 
 variation. A witness gives a long sentence ; the clerk in taking 
 it down is struck by this or that particular word, and that goes 
 down ; but the whole of the context which often makes all the 
 difference is not taken down. I quite agree that if there be a 
 substantial difference it should be seriously taken into account; 
 but as to slight irregularities, it does not make so much 
 difference. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am obliged to your lordship. I 
 think I was a little out of order. 
 
 Re-examination resumed Did you say anything before the 
 coroner about the chloride of lime being brought to No. 84 ? To 
 the best of my belief, I said it was brought in late one evening 
 by Baylis's man. When No. 84 was open the shutters of No. 
 215 were down. It was kept open as long as No. 84 was open. 
 When the shutters of No. 215 were put up, the shutters of No. 
 84 were put up. We could see from one end of the warehouse to 
 the other in the daytime. There was a paint room at the end 
 of the warehouse, where brushes were kept. It was partitioned 
 off, and a door led to it from the rest of the warehouse. The 
 only light in that room was a gas burner. There was no glass 
 light in the paint room. The partition of the paint room was 
 partly taken away while I was there. The police contract wa 
 made on the last Friday in November last year. I recollect 
 when I began to make inquiries about the price of the articles 
 
 84
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 that it was about a fortnight or three weeks before the com- G.W.Rogers 
 menoement of November. My wife was confined early on the 
 morning of 12th September. She spoke to me about the chloride 
 of lime ; that was before her confinement on the 10th. 
 
 Mrs. JANB ROGERS, examined I am the wife of the last Mrs. Rogers 
 witness. We lived from July to November, 1874, in the upper 
 part of 84 Whitechapel Road. While I was there a young 
 woman, whom I knew as Mrs. King, came to the house to visit 
 Henry Wainwright. I have seen her there on several occasions 
 with him at the end of the shop and in the counting-house, 
 which was at the end of the shop. I have seen her in the shop ; 
 I cannot say whether she has remained there. I have seen her 
 sitting in the room with him as I have passed through the shop, 
 but I have not heard what they said when they were together. 
 One evening I heard loud talking, but I did not hear what was 
 said ; it appeared to me as if they were quarrelling. The par- 
 ticular evening I am speaking of was about the beginning of 
 September. I heard the talking for some minutes. I saw her 
 go out that night, through the fanlight of the door, and Henry 
 Wainwright followed immediately after. 
 
 I remember on another occasion hearing a noise or disturb- 
 ance at No. 84. It was in August, as far as I can recollect; I 
 cannot say the exact date. I heard loud voices in the shop, and 
 the words, " Don't ! don't ! " in a woman's voice in a loud tone, 
 and then Henry Wainwright called my husband. The voice was 
 in the shop. My husband went downstairs. It was after the 
 shop was closed, after eight o'clock. Immediately afterwards 
 the shop door shut, I heard it slam, and Henry Wainwright 
 went out, I believe. Soon after that the bell rang, and I went 
 downstairs and opened the door. Henry Wainwright came in. 
 I said, "Mr. Wainwright, there is a woman lying on the shop 
 floor." He said, " Oh, is there? She has only fainted; will 
 you give me a little vinegar, please." I returned upstairs 
 and brought some vinegar down, and saw the woman lying on 
 the floor. She appeared to be insensible; she did not speak. 
 Henry Wainwright took the vinegar and said, " Thank you, I 
 can manage now," and I returned upstairs. I heard them go 
 out about a quarter of an hour after. That is all that occurred. 
 
 I remember a smell at No. 84 which attracted my attention on 
 10th September. What makes me remember that is that I was 
 in a delicate state of health, and it was the last time I went out 
 previous to my baby being born on 1 2th September. The smell 
 appeared to proceed from a square case which I saw in 
 the passage on 10th September. My little girl fell 
 
 85
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mrs. Rogers down on the llth, and I was upset, and my baby was 
 born the next day. I smelt what appeared to me to be chloride 
 of lime, both on going out and coming in. I was taken ill on 
 llth. Chloride of lime always makes me feel sick, and that 
 smell made me feel sick. I spoke to my husband about it. 
 
 I have seen the prisoner Thomas at the shop in Whitechapel 
 Road with his brother a great many times ; he wore a moustache, 
 but he did not have any whiskers at all. His moustache was 
 rather slight, but not large, and he had no beard. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DOUGLAS STRAIGHT Prior to Septem- 
 ber, 1874, there had been no complaint of smells at No. 84. 
 The rooms we occupied were over the shop. I was sitting there 
 when I heard this talking in the kitchen. I believe my husband 
 was with me it lasted some few mimites. I did not go right 
 to the bottom of the stairs; I went part of the way down, and 
 then came back again. I had seen Mrs. King many times at 
 No. 84 it may have been twenty times; in the daytime as well 
 as in the evening. I remember the earrings worn by Mrs. King 
 because they had a fringe round them. I had closely observed 
 them, and admired them very much. 
 
 Did you, when shown the earrings at the Police Court on 6th 
 October, identify them as those worn by Mrs. King? No ; I said 
 they were like them, because they had a fringe round them. 
 
 Then all you swore was that they were like the earrings worn 
 by Mrs. King? Yes. 
 
 Did you know that Mrs. King's earrings were gold? They 
 appeared to be. 
 
 Did you not see that the earrings shown to you in Court were 
 brass? I do not know that they were brass. 
 
 But you now know the fact that Mrs. Izzard has sworn that 
 those earrings were hers? Yes. 
 
 Now, be careful, Mrs. Rogers. Did you on 6th October, or 
 on any other occasion when before the magistrates, give a word 
 of evidence regarding the transaction you have now spoken to 
 when you fetched the vinegar? I did not. 
 
 When before the magistrates did you mention that on one 
 evening you heard a woman call out, " Oh, don't " that Wain- 
 wright called down your husband; that you went down after- 
 wards, and saw a woman lying on the floor in the shop? No, 
 I did not. 
 
 You did not say one word about the vinegar ? No. 
 
 To whom did you first make that statement? To Mr. 
 Pollard. 
 
 When ? Some time last week ; but I cannot say the day. 
 
 Did you make it at the Treasury? Ye*.
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 I think in your deposition you stated it had gone out ot your Mrs. Rogers 
 mind till you recalled it by this matter? Yes. 
 
 When did this matter first occur to you? It was some time 
 after I had given my evidence. I was in the kitchen with my 
 husband and servant when I heard the words, " Don't! don't! " 
 uttered, and a few minutes afterwards Henry Wainwright called 
 my husband down. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did your husband hear the 
 words, "Don't! don't! " the same as you? I don't know 
 whether he did or not. To the best of my belief, that occurred 
 about the middle of August. 
 
 Have you not said either the end of August or the beginning 
 of September? I think about the end of August I was in a 
 delicate state of health, expecting my second child. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL You eay you knew 
 the woman who came as Mrs. King. Just look at that photo- 
 graph. (Photograph handed to witness, in which the deceased 
 and her sister were taken standing together.) Do you recognise 
 in either of those ladies any you have seen before? Yes, the 
 one in the dark dress is Mrs. King. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is it a good likeness of her? 
 Yes, I think it is a very good one. After being before the 
 magistrate I talked to my husband and different people about 
 the case and about the woman being found. It was the talk 
 of the neighbourhood. 
 
 Re-examination continued I believe you admired the ear- 
 rings worn by Mrs. King, and that led you to examine them? 
 Yes, the earrings I admired had fringes, and so had those shown 
 me in the Police Court. I was attracted to them because they 
 looked so nice. 
 
 Did you know Miss Wilmore? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember her coming to the shop at No. 84? Yes, 
 she came to No. 84 and to No. 215 also. 
 
 GEORGE WILLIAM ROGERS, recalled, by the LORD CHIEF G.W.Rogers 
 JUSTICE Do you recollect upon any occasion when Mrs. King 
 was at No. 84 you were called down from the room where you 
 were with your wife upstairs by Henry Wainwright? I do. 
 
 Did you hear, before you were called down by Wainwright, 
 any calling on the part of a woman ? Nothing particularly. 
 
 You eay you remember his calling you down? I do. 
 
 Did you then see Mrs. King? Yes. 
 
 Where was she then? Just by the partition door. 
 
 What did Henry Wainwright say to you when you went 
 
 87
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 G. W Rogers down 1 He handed me a letter to take to 40 Tredegar Square, 
 and Mrs. King snatched at the letter and tore it open. I then 
 left the premises. 
 
 Where did you go to? I was going to Tredegar Square. 
 
 Then you did not go? No; I did not, though I went out 
 with the intention of going to 40 Tredegar Square. 
 
 You say she snatched the letter out of your hand? She 
 tore it in my hand, but I still held the letter. 
 
 When you went out did you still keep the letter in your 
 hand and take it to 40 Tredegar Square, or what did you do 
 with it? I read it. 
 
 Having read it, what did you do with it ? I thought it was 
 a piece of nonsense, and I did not deliver it. 
 
 How long were you out? About half an hour. 
 
 Did you say anything to Wainwright when you came in? 
 Nothing more than that I did not take it. It was a letter from 
 himself to Mrs. Wainwright, and he gave it to me to take to 
 Tredegar Square himself. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is entirely new evidence, and 
 if you desire to cross-examine upon it you shall. 
 
 Mr. BESLEY I prefer to leave the fact to the jury, that this 
 has not been mentioned till this moment. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The fact of the wife having given 
 evidence is quite enough to call for inquiry how far the husband 
 was aware of the facts as to which his wife spoke. (To Witness) 
 What did you do with the letter afterwards? I brought it 
 home and threw it down in the fireplace. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL May I ask him whether it was in 
 Wain wright's handwriting? 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The difficulty I feel is that all this 
 has been got out by the prosecution, and the other side has had 
 no notice; so I don't think I can let the matter go further. 
 
 J. M. Steele JOHN MATTHEW STEELE, examined I am foreman to William 
 Dicker, a pawnbroker in the Commercial Road. I produce two 
 pawn tickets; one of them is in my handwriting, and is for a 
 wedding ring for 10s. on May, 1874, in the name of Ann King, 
 3 Sidney Square. The name of King was given to me. I 
 don't know that she gave the name of Ann. I put " Ann," 
 as it was pawned by a woman ; we put " John " and " Ann " for 
 man and woman. We affix a ticket to the ring and 
 give a duplicate. I also produce a pawn ticket for a keeper ring 
 for 8s. That ticket is in the writing of George Overall, who is 
 present. I cannot from memory tell when these rings were
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 taken out of pawn. When things are taken out the tickets are J. M. steele 
 taken from them and put on a file on which the days are kept 
 separate. The duplicate tickets are pinned together and filed, 
 and they are kept for three years. A tab or memorandum is put 
 between each day on the file. I got these tickets from the day's 
 file of llth September, 1874. I made a memorandum on the 
 ticket when I took it off that that was the date. 
 
 GEORGE OVERALL, examined I am now an assistant to Mr. <* Overall 
 Rowley, a pawnbroker of 44 Ledbury Road, Bayswater. I was 
 formerly in the service of Mr. Dicker, when Steele was foreman. 
 This ticket for the keeper ring is in my writing ; it was pawned 
 in the name of Ann King, 3 Sidney Square, for 8s. on 22nd 
 May, 1874. I wrote out the ticket myself. I don't remember 
 whether I advanced the money. The ticket has the foreman's 
 initials on it. 
 
 HERRIBIN MASON LBBTS, examined I was in the employment Ht * Leets 
 of Mr. Dicker twelve months ago. I see some writing of mine 
 on these two tickets for the wedding ring and keeper. I gave 
 those things out of pawn some time in September last year. 
 19s. ld. was paid altogether. There was 13d. interest. 
 I do not remember who took them out; they were taken out 
 together. The tickets are then filed the same day. Each day's 
 tickets are kept separate. We do not endorse the date on them 
 when the things are taken out. The figures " 11-9 " on the 
 back are not in my writing. 
 
 JAMES KAY, examined I live at 7 Barchester Street, Poplar, James Kay 
 and am a blacksmith in the employment of Mr. Wiseman, 
 coachbuilder, of 216 Whitechapel Road. I have been in his 
 service upwards of sixteen years. My brother William is also 
 in his employ. We were both working there in September last 
 year. I remember in that month doing some work on a van of 
 Mr. Martin's. At the back part of our premises there is an 
 open-fronted shed in the yard, the back of which goes against 
 the back part of 215 Whitechapel Road. There are gates to 
 the yard leading into Vine Court. This was an extraordinarily 
 heavy job for us. Young Master Wiseman, my employer's son, 
 was assisting us. I made an entry of my work in a book. This 
 (produced) is it. I have an entry here in my own handwriting 
 about this job, and on referring to that I am able to say on 
 what day I was doing this job. It looks to me like llth Septem- 
 ber. I made the entry on the evening of the same day as the
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 James Kay job was finished. We were at work from about eleven o'clock 
 in the morning till between seven and eight o'clock in the 
 evening. We finished it in the one day. I referred to the book 
 for the purposes of this case on 20th September last. It had 
 been hanging up behind the door ever since it was done with 
 last year, and I found it there on 20th September. 
 
 While we were working at the van, between five and seven 
 o'clock, about six o'clock, as near as I can recollect, there were 
 three loud reports of pistol shots. I was under the shed at the 
 forge at the time, and I had got a heater very nearly ready to 
 bring out. The report seemed to come over my head, from the 
 direction of Wainwright's premises. There were about six 
 seconds between the shots, as near as I can say. They were 
 very rapid, one after the other. My brother ran and opened 
 the gates and went into Vine Court; young Mr. Wiseman 
 followed him. They went in the direction of Mr. Pinnell's 
 gates. I called them back again, because I had got a heater 
 hot, and was just going to heat one of the tires together. They 
 came back directly, and shut the gates. I did not leave the 
 yard ; we went on with our work, and did not take any further 
 notice. In September this year I heard of this case. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT You say it was between five 
 and seven in the evening, and only get at the date by the book? 
 Yes. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Does your employer keep a 
 book in which the work is entered? Yes; he copies it from 
 this book in a week or a fortnight afterwards, perhaps longer 
 sometimes. 
 
 Cross-examination continued You have said before you 
 would not like to swear the date was not the 17th. I may take 
 it now that after your attention has been called to the book 
 you have doubts? I do not see that there can be very much 
 doubt. There are two strokes. I had often before this time 
 heard Mr. Pinnell fire shots in his yard. Before I was questioned 
 as to the affair I had heard that the surgeons had found bullets 
 in the remains. Before that a gentleman connected with a 
 London newspaper came without introducing himself and inter- 
 viewed myself and my brother. The newspaper gentleman did 
 not ask me or my brother if we had heard shots. I remember 
 now he asked me if I recollected hearing any shots fired, but 
 I was busy with work, and did not stop to talk to him. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How did you know he was a 
 gentleman connected with a newspaper? Because he called 
 again on Saturday, and then he told me who he was. 
 
 90
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Cross-examination continued I was not there when he James Kay 
 asked my brother William the first time. On the Saturday 
 when he came my brother was present, and the " governor," 
 the elder Mr. Wiseman. It was my brother who first recollected 
 about the shots. Before that we had talked the matter over 
 with young Mr. Wiseman, and afterwards the newspaper gentle- 
 man came half a dozen times. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (interposing) said that the questions 
 put by the learned counsel were distinctly irregular. If he 
 wished to contradict the witnesses by the depositions, those 
 depositions must be put in. 
 
 To the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I told Sergeant Forster that 
 my brother recollected it first. 
 
 Cross-examination continued I had described the rapidity 
 of the shots as three reports all in six seconds. 
 
 You have always said you could not fix the time nearer than 
 between five and seven o'clock? Yes; I made the remark that 
 it was just our tea-time, and my brother agreed. We have no 
 regular tea-time. I did not go by that, but by the fact that 
 we had to finish our job before dark. 
 
 Did you talk that over with William? No. 
 
 I ask you again to tell me whether, since your first con- 
 versation with the newspaper gentlemen, you talked the matter 
 over several times with your brother and young Mr. Wiseman? 
 We might have talked of it about three times. ' 
 
 There is another little matter I want to ask you about 
 that of running up to Pinnell's gate and looking through the 
 keyhole and about the iron being hot. Did you talk of that? 
 No. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL These shots were 
 fired in quick succession? Yes. I am sure I heard three. 
 
 Had you heard shots in rapid succession like those from Mr. 
 Pinnell's before? Never. I have heard single shots only. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE At what intervals? Sometimes 
 one in a day, and one the next day, but never more than one. 
 
 By the ATTORNEY -GENERAL Do you remember, without your 
 books, that you were that day working on this large van? 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect that you had to finish it that day? Yes, 
 I recollect that we had to finish it that night. 
 
 WILLIAM KAT, examined by Mr. BESLHY I am a wheeler William Kay 
 by trade, and am a brother of the previous witness. I work for 
 Mr. Wiseman, and have done so for twelve years. I remember 
 
 91
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 William Kay last year a job being done to a very largo van of Mr. 
 Martin's. 
 
 Was there anything remarkable about the job? The only 
 remarkable thing was that it was a heavy job. 
 
 Whilst at work did anything attract your attention? Yes, 
 three reports of firearms. 
 
 How were they fired? Do you mean how rapid? 
 
 Yes? About six seconds, as near as I can recollect now. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Six seconds between them? 
 No, sir; all three of them; they were in very quick succession. 
 
 Examination continued They appeared to be fired just 
 outside our gates. Standing in our yard and looking at the 
 gates, the shots seemed at the leftrhand corner. 
 
 Would that be by Wainwright's premises? Yes. 
 
 From the loudness of the reports, did it seem as if the shots 
 must have been fired very near? Very near indeed. It seemed 
 an ordinary report from a pistol, but I don't know the difference 
 in sound between a gun and a pistol. It was between five 
 and seven, as near as I can remember. On hearing the reports 
 I ran and opened the gates leading into Vine Court, but I did 
 not see any one. Young Mr. Wiseman followed me out. After 
 looking about and seeing no one, I went to Pinnell's gate, 
 and looked through the keyhole to see if I could see any one 
 there. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I saw no one there. 
 
 Examination continued I knew that Pinnell had a pistol 
 a single-barrelled one, an ordinary old pistol. My brother called 
 us back, and we went to work again. This must have been 
 after August, 1874, because we had a man working there up 
 to the last Saturday in August, and it was in consequence of 
 his leaving that I went to help my brother. I could not say 
 what time it was in September. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLEY There was a great deal of 
 excitement outside Mr. Wiseman's premises after Henry Wain- 
 wright was in custody; people were coming about there. On 
 one occasion a gentleman connected with the newspapers asked 
 me and my brother whether we recollected about the shots, and 
 I said no. I recollected it the next day. I talked it over with 
 my brother on the Saturday, and Detective Forster came on the 
 Monday. After he came my brother and I very seldom had 
 anything to say about it; we had something else to do. We 
 never talked the whole matter over; as we thought of anything, 
 we reminded one another of it, that is all. I was not in Court 
 at the inquest when my brother was examined. At the Police 
 
 92
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Court I said the time was six seconds. I did not talk about William Kay 
 the six seconds with my brother. I could not fix the time of 
 day nearer than between five and seven, because it was the tea- 
 time, and tea-time varies. I did not talk that over with my 
 brother. We were considering what job we had done. That 
 was what we went by ; we could tell how long the job was done 
 before dark, and that was how we got at the time. I said that 
 by the time the job was done it was nearer eight than seven 
 o'clock. I am not sure that the van went home that night. 
 I have no recollection of its stopping there two or three days; 
 my impression is that it went home either that night or the 
 next morning. When I was at the inquest I recollected about 
 looking through the keyhole of Mr. Pinnell's door. I am not 
 aware that I forgot to say anything about it ; I believe I men- 
 tioned it. I daresay I partly read my brother's evidence at the 
 inquest. I did not read the evidence of every witness, but I 
 dare say I read my own. I believe it was me that mentioned 
 about looking through the keyhole, not my brother. I had 
 not talked with him about it. I don't know that he knew 
 anything about it. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I went out, and 
 young Mr. Wiseman followed me. My brother stayed in the 
 yard. I did not see him out there. I don't recollect the van 
 coming to be oiled (looking at a book) I went round there 
 to do it. 
 
 JAMES WISEMAN, examined My father carries on business ' 
 at 216 and 217 Whitechapel Road; I assist in his business. I 
 remember some time last year assisting the Kays in a job; I 
 don't remember what it was. I assist them pretty often. I 
 think I was blowing the bellows at the forge under the shed. 
 Whilst there I heard three reports so (tapping the witness-box 
 slowly three times), about that as near as I could judge, coming 
 in succession one after the other. It was in the evening, some- 
 where between five and seven o'clock, I should think. On 
 hearing the reports Will Kay went out into Vine Court, and 
 I went with him. We could not see anything, and we went 
 back in a minute or two. I could not say what month it was 
 in. I had never heard three reports one after the other 
 like that about there never but one, that was from the back 
 part of Mr. PinnelPs premises. I know that he sometimes fired 
 a pistol. I have seen his pistol; it has a single barrel. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLHY One of the Kays asked me if 
 I remembered three pistol shots, and I at first said no, and then 
 I remembered them. I don't remember which of the Kays it was. 
 
 93
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 J. Wiseman I talked it over with them not more than once or twice, I think. 
 I did not remember it for the minute. I am quite sure that I 
 remember it now. 
 
 Mrs. Trew Mrs. MARY JANE TREW, examined I am the wife of James 
 Trew and the daughter of Mr. Wiseman. I live at home with 
 my father, and did so in September last year. I was in the 
 habit of keeping his books. James Kay had a little memo- 
 randum book, from which I used to enter up my father's books ; 
 I mostly copied it. We only keep one book ; this is it (produced). 
 I copied it into that. The top entry on the right-hand side is 
 my writing. I copied this from the memorandum book. I 
 have no independent recollection of when Mr. Martin's van was 
 repaired ; this entry is all I know about it. I have put it down 
 here as the 9th. I believed it was the 9th when I saw the book. 
 I must have thought so at the time I copied it. Perhaps I made 
 the entry two or three days after the work was done ; it might 
 have been a week; I can't remember. I don't know when it 
 may have been done. I do not know anything but what I gather 
 from this book. When I saw this book lately I thought it was 
 very much like a 9. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLEY I am accustomed to copy the 
 writing of this workman ; he has been a long time in my father's 
 employment ; I have done all the copying. 
 
 J. H. Pinneii JOHN HOOD PINNELL, examined by Mr. POLAND I am an 
 oilman, and am in business at 214 Whitechapel Road. I have a 
 small single-barrelled pistol, only a toy; it is not a revolver (pro- 
 duced). I frequently fired it in my back yard for amusement. I 
 used small bullets or cartridges. I generally kept it hanging up in 
 my shop. I have known Henry Wainwright for many years as 
 a neighbour. I remember on Friday, 10th September, of this 
 year, Henry Wainwright coming to my shop about 11 or 11.30 
 in the morning and buying some cord. I sold him 8 yards ; the 
 price was 2d. He paid me for it and took it away. Nothing 
 more was said about it. This was on the Friday before the 
 discovery was made. The rope I sold was similar to that pro- 
 duced, but I cannot swear to it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. DOUGLAS STRAIGHT How long have 
 you had the pistol? Four or five years. 
 
 Have you been in the habit of practising with it from time 
 to time? During the whole of that period. 
 
 Have you got anything in the shape of a target in the place 
 where you used to practise? No; I just put it in my pocket to 
 fire for amusement. 
 
 94
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Is there any portion of the yard to which you were in the j. H. Pinneii 
 habit of directing your shots ? I fired at anything I took it into 
 my head to fire at. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Was it with the view of practis- 
 ing to make yourself a shot, or at little birds hopping about, 
 or had you any particular mark to fire at? I had no particular 
 mark. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Did you practise at night with 
 it? No. 
 
 Did you ever stay in the yard and fire, perhaps, half a dozen 
 shots? I dare say I might. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Where do you keep your cart- 
 ridges ? In my pocket. [The witness showed how the cartridges 
 were fitted to the pistol.] 
 
 You have to take the used-up cartridge out and then put in 
 another? Yes. It does not throw itself out. 
 
 CHARLES SAWYER, examined I am a wholesale brushmaker c - Sawyer 
 at 63 and 65 South wark Bridge Road. I was formerly in partner- 
 ship with Henry Wainwright, and we carried on business together 
 from November, 1873, to January, 1874, as brushmakers, at 84 
 and 215 Whitechapel Road. I did not reside on either of the 
 premises. The partnership was dissolved on 8th January, 1874. 
 
 When your partnership was dissolved, did you act as re- 
 ceiver? Yes, under the order of the Court of Chancery I took 
 possession of the keys of both 84 and 215. I examined the 
 property on the premises. There was a private office at No. 84, 
 on the first floor. I and my partner had the use of that. I 
 examined the desk and other things in the office. In one of the 
 drawers I found a packet of bullets in a small tin box or brown 
 paper parcel. I think they were conical pin-fire cartridges, 
 bullet and cartridge together. I did not keep them, but passed 
 them to Wainwright. I drew his attention to them when I 
 found them, and he said they were his. I gave them to him, 
 and I have not seen them since. I never sold a revolver to 
 Wainwright. I have a revolver of my own. I should say the 
 bullets Wainwright took away were a size larger than mine. I 
 have my revolver here. 
 
 SAJCUKL HESSAN BBHRBND, examined I am a solicitor. I S.H.Behrend 
 know the prisoner, Henry Wainwright. In September, 1874, 
 he was first introduced to me. Some money was lent by one of 
 my clients, through me, to him. I took as security a mortgage 
 on the premises, 215 and 84 Whitechapel Road, and also some 
 life assurance policies. Some time in 1875, about the middle of 
 
 95
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 S. H. Behrend May or June, I wrote to him about the repayment of the money. 
 I issued a writ of ejectment, but at his request I never served it. 
 As soon as I saw the advertisement of the appointment of a 
 trustee in July, I at once took possession of No. 215, and put 
 in a man named Francois, a tenant of mine. 
 
 Did you afterwards put a woman called Emma Izzard in pos- 
 session? Yes, on 18th July, and when I got possession I gave 
 instructions that a bill should be placed in the shop windows. I 
 also instructed Francois to paint and fix boards outside, announc- 
 ing that the lease of these premises was to be sold by me. 
 
 A. Francois ALBERT FRANCOIS, examined I am a house decorator, of 31 
 Greyhound Lane, Fulham. In July of this year I got possession 
 from Mr. Behrend, the mortgagee, of 215 Whitechapel Road. I 
 had no key. I fixed up two boards in the shape of a V, on which 
 was " The lease of these premises to be sold. Inquire within, 
 or at Mr. Behrend's, 30 Buckler sbury." I did not remain in 
 possession very long. I gave possession and the key to Mr. 
 Behrend. 
 
 Mrs. Izzard Mrs. EMMA IZZARD, examined I am the wife of John Izzard, 
 a carman in the service of Mr. Walker. On 27th August we 
 were sent by Mr. Behrend to 215 Whitechapel Road. We re- 
 mained there six weeks all but two days, and occupied the rooms 
 in the front part facing Whitechapel Road. We used the kitchen, 
 which is on the first floor back. There were parts of old brushes 
 there which we used to burn. While we lived there Henry 
 Wain wright came pretty nearly every morning for his letters, 
 and I used to give them to him. That continued up to the time 
 we left. I had some old metal earrings, and before I left I threw 
 them into the kitchen fireplace, but I took the rings out of them 
 and wore them. I bought them for common ones, and when I 
 threw them away they were almost black. I left an old 
 umbrella and an old slipper there. I was shown the earrings 
 before the magistrates. I do not know whether Henry Wain- 
 wright had a key of the premises ; I always let him in. One day 
 he tried the door with a key, but there was no lock on, only a 
 padlock and bolt. I do not know that he had a key of the 
 back door. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT When any one wanted to 
 make us hear, the proper course was to come to the back door. 
 Inspector Fox has my earrings now. I had had them between 
 two and three years. I do not know whether they were remark- 
 able, but I never saw any like them. A policeman came on 
 96
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Saturday night and told me that .they were sworn to as Mrs. Mrs. Izzard 
 King's earrings, and I said that I had thrown them away. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. POLAKD I went to Stones End police 
 station. I bought the earrings at a stall in the street, at 
 Paddington. 
 
 WALTER ARCHHR, examined I am now an invoice clerk with W. Archer 
 Messrs. Venables <fe Son, of Whitechapel. I have known Thomas 
 Wain wright eighteen months. I entered into his service in 
 January of this year as an assistant. He opened the business 
 of an ironmonger at the Hen and Chickens ; the house had been 
 closed before. I was the only person in his service at that time. 
 A stock of goods was brought into the premises. I remained 
 with him for four or five months, until the latter end of June. 
 During that time I have occasionally seen Henry Wainwright 
 there, perhaps five times; I never saw them there together. 
 Goods passed from one to the other. I remember an execution 
 being put in, a man being put in possession about the middle of 
 May. There was a sale after that, in June. The sale was under 
 the control of Mr. George Lewis, who is an accountant in the 
 Borough. Herrick's man was in possession (the auctioneer). 
 The door was fastened by a padlock outside, to which there 
 were two keys. After the sale a new padlock was put on, I 
 believe by Mr. Lewis's instructions, and he had the key of it, 
 which he kept at his place ; I do not believe there was more than 
 one key to that padlock. After the sale the business at the 
 Hen and Chickens was discontinued, and all the things were 
 cleared away, and I left. I went into Mr. Lewis's employ 
 temporarily. From the time of the sale I remained there almost 
 a fortnight. At that time the key of the padlock was in Mr. 
 Lewis's place. Thomas Wainwright came to Mr. Lewis's a 
 few days after I had been there, and asked me for the key 
 of the Borough (meaning the Hen and Chickens). Mr. Lewis 
 was out, but I gave it him. He asked me if I would have a 
 glass of stout, and afterwards, with Thomas Wainwright, I 
 met Mr. Lewis. I went into the office while Mr. Lewis and 
 Mr. Wainwright had some conversation which I did not hear. 
 I told Mr. Lewis I had given the key to Thomas Wainwright. 
 On the following Friday I saw Thomas Wainwright 
 again, but nothing passed about the key. I noticed a change 
 in his appearance. He had some hair missing from his face; 
 I do not exactly remember whether it was his moustache or 
 any hair shaved off here. In his ordinary appearance he wore 
 a slight moustache, not particularly light nor yet particularly 
 
 H 97
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 , Archer dark. I do not remember whether he wore whiskers or beard ; 
 be used to shave, and the difference in his hair was parting it 
 down the middle. This is the key of the padlock, to the best 
 of my belief, that I gave to Thomas Wainwright. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY At the time he parted his 
 hair differently he used to have the services of a barber. I 
 noticed the change in his hair at Southwark Police Court, and 
 the other change I noticed on or about 2nd July. The sale took 
 place on 28th June. Herrick was an officer of the Sheriff of 
 Surrey. I continued on the premises until the property was 
 sold, until 28th June; as soon as it was sold I went into 
 Mr. Lewis's office from a week to a fortnight. On a Tuesday 
 before 2nd July Thomas Wainwright came to my master's office 
 and asked me for the key. The new padlock was bought shortly 
 after the 18th before the sale, not after it. No person was 
 left on the premises. I went into Mr. Lewis's office after the 
 sale, and the key was hanging up over the mantelpiece. I 
 never saw it from the time I gave it to Wainwright till it was 
 put into my hands at the Police Court. I had business on the 
 premises after the sale. Mr. Lewis was coming over the bridge, 
 and, to the best of my knowledge, Wainwright had a con- 
 versation with him. 
 
 I should say that 9d. was about the price of the padlock; 
 it was a very common one. The property being seized under a 
 judgment, Mr. Lewis had no right at all on the premises, so I 
 gave the key to my former employer, Mr. Wainwright. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL The first change I 
 noticed in Thomas Wainwright' s appearance was about his 
 face. I do not recollect whether he had whiskers or beard. One 
 of the two had gone. He was bare where he had had hair. 
 I don't think his moustache was gone. I noticed that there 
 was a difference about the appearance of his face. When I saw 
 him at the Police Court his moustache was gone, and his hair 
 was parted down the middle, with a little curl on each side. 
 I do not recollect whether he wore whiskers at the Police Court ; 
 I do not think he did. He had a moustache when I saw him in 
 July. Either his beard or whiskers had gone; it might have 
 been his moustache ; I did not take stock of his appearance. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The sale being over, Mr. Lewis 
 |had no right to the premises, and was not entitled to the key. 
 Mr. Lewis bought a new padlock, so that Mr. Wainwright should 
 not get in when there were goods in the house before the sale. 
 After that there was no necessity to keep him out. 
 
 98
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 GEORQB LEWIS, examined I am an accountant at 14 South- c. Lewi* 
 wark Bridge Road. I have known Thomas Wainwright nearly 
 six years. In November, 1874, he asked me if I would discount 
 a bill of his brother's. He did not tell me what the money was 
 wanted for. I said, " You are not friendly with your brother." 
 He said, " Yes, I am; I have made it up with him." I said, 
 " Get me the bill, and I will look at it and let you know." 
 I was aware some years ago that he was not friendly with his 
 brother. He brought me the bill the following morning; this 
 is it; it is dated 20th November, at two months, drawn by 
 Thomas Wainwright, accepted by Henry Wainwright, 
 for 30, payable at the London City Bank, White- 
 chapel. I communicated with his brother, who wrote 
 me a letter, and I discounted the bill. Thomas wore 
 no whiskers at that time, but he had a small fair moustache. 
 I afterwards discounted this second bill for him for 62, at 
 four months. It is drawn by Thomas Wainwright, and accepted 
 by Henry. Those bills were both dishonoured. They were not 
 renewed, and I have to lay an attachment against the money 
 which was in the Sun Fire Office coming to Henry. The arrange- 
 ment was made between me and Thomas Wainwright, because he 
 was to receive 300 from his brother when that money came. 
 I laid the attachment against the two bills, making 92. I 
 made that arrangement with Thomas in consequence of his 
 telling me he was to get 300 of it. He said, " When my 
 brother gets his money I shall receive 200, and if you attach 
 it you will get your money." He was in no business then, 
 but he told me he was about to take the Hen and Chickens. I 
 do not know what he had been doing previously; I had not 
 seen him for three years. He did ultimately take the Hen and 
 Chickens, and stocked it very nicely with ironmongery goods. 
 I lent him not only this 92, but 19 besides, unfortunately 
 for me. I took a bill of sale on the goods of him. I had sued 
 him on the 30 bill, and threatened to put in an execution. He 
 said, "Don't do that; I will give you a bill of sale on my 
 goods." That was on the 92, and 17 or 18 besides. Mr. 
 Herrick took possession under the execution, and I told him 
 to levy. 
 
 On the same day as the sale, the man refused to remain in 
 possession unless a fresh padlock was put on, as seven or eight 
 lots were left, and I got a fresh padlock M the door. That 
 was on 18th June. The lots were to be cleared the same day, 
 but some gentleman could not clear his lots. After all the lots 
 had been taken out and delivered I locked the place up safely,
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 G. Lewis brought the key away with me, and hung it up in my office 
 under the clock. There was only one key there. I did not 
 know that Archer had given the key up. 
 
 When I returned from the city to my office, I found my 
 papers all turned about, and I said, "Who has been here? " 
 Archer told me that Mr. Wainwright had taken the key from 
 the nail. I know that he had removed the key from the place. 
 
 The signature to these bills is in Thomas Wainwright's 
 writing; I know his writing. I produce a letter in Thomas 
 Wainwright's writing, dated 21st November, 1874. I 
 do not know Henry Wainwright's writing. This receipt 
 for some boxes, dated 29th May, 1875, is in Thomas 
 Wainwright's writing; he wrote it in my presence. 
 There is a stamped receipt on it. This paper of 
 26th July is also his writing, but I did not see him write that. 
 This paper dated "Wednesday" is also in his writing, but 
 I did not see him write it. This paper, dated 22nd May, 1875, 
 he wrote in my presence, giving me possession of the premises. 
 I did not see him write this paper of 10th May, 1875, but he 
 sent it to my office; it is in his writing. I am almost certain 
 that this letter marked E is in Thomas Wainwright's writing. 
 There is no question at all about the others. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY Only three of these docu- 
 ments were written in my presence, and I am more clear about 
 the others being his writing than I am about letter E. The 
 lease of the Hen and Chickens is not to Thomas Wainwright 
 only, but to him and a person named Moore, and another person ; 
 it is a joint lease. I had no instructions giving me any title to 
 the premises themselves. There was no writ authorising the 
 Sheriff to take possession. The lease has not been executed 
 at all; he went away and left the premises. Everything to 
 which I had a title on the premises was removed before the key 
 was obtained. Thomas himself advised me to put an attach- 
 ment on the money coming from the Sun Fire Office, and he went 
 with me to see it done, in order that I might get repayment of 
 the 92 owing on the two bills of exchange, and the 18 of 
 which I have never received a shilling, as the goods only realised 
 7. I charged the usual interest. I charged him 50 per cent, 
 for the money. That was my rate of charge. I was asked 
 before the magistrate, and I did not give the same particulars 
 about the attachment as I have to-day. Thomas had whiskers 
 when he was in the dock before the magistrate, but he had not 
 worn them previously. I saw no difference in him barring the 
 whiskers. I will not be positive whether I have mentioned 
 
 100
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 before to-day " a small moustache, fair in colour." Moore G. Lewte 
 was a partner at one time, but he went away in oUfficulties. 
 
 J. M. STBBLB, recalled This is my file, on which the tickets J. M. Steele 
 of each day are kept distinct by a tab. There is a fresh tab at 
 the end of each day. These are five months' tickets. I find 
 here the tab for 10th and llth September, 1874. These two 
 tickets (produced) were taken from the part for llth September, 
 1874. In my daily balance book, in which I entered the number 
 of tickets delivered on that day, I find here in my own writing 
 that the number delivered on that day was thirty-six ; there are 
 thirty-four on the file now, two have been taken off. 
 
 Adjourned till to-morrow. 
 
 101
 
 Fifth Day Friday, 26th November, 1875. 
 
 W. Graydon WILLIAM GRAYDON, examined I am manager for Messrs. 
 Rowlandson, upholsterers, 83 Whitechapel Road. I have known 
 Henry Wainwright for seventeen or eighteen years. On 10th 
 September last he oame to the shop and bought 2 yards of thick 
 leather cloth, common black American cloth, the commonest we 
 have. The price was Is. 4d., or 8d. a yard. He did not say 
 what he wanted it for. I have been shown some American cloth 
 by Inspector Fox, which is exactly similar in quantity and colour. 
 
 H. Young HENRY YOUNG, examined I am assistant to my father, a 
 livery stable keeper in the Whitechapel Road. I have known the 
 two prisoners for ten or fifteen years. I know Mr. Martin's 
 shop and place of business. On the morning of llth September 
 I saw the prisoners in the New Road outside Martin's shop, 
 between ten and eleven o'clock. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How do you know it was the 
 llth. 1 Because that was the day of the arrest of Henry 
 Wainwright. 
 
 Examination continued The two prisoners were talking 
 together, and just as I came up Henry left his brother Thomas 
 and said, " Good morning." I spoke to Thomas and said, 
 " You're not looking very well." There was something very 
 different in his appearance, and I asked him if he had shaved 
 off his moustache. He replied, " Yes," put his hand up to his 
 mouth, said " Good morning," and left. I had always known 
 him to have a slight moustache, a little whiskers, and no beard. 
 
 I remember on 9th April last removing some fixtures for 
 Henry Wainwright, at his foreman, Rogers', request, from 215 
 Whitechapel Road. There was a good one-horse vanload of 
 fixtures. I removed them to Collier's Yard, Gloucester Street, 
 Commercial Road. It was a place that Henry Wainwright had 
 had in his occupation some time, and it was in his occupation 
 then. It was his store place when he had the police contract. 
 When I removed the fixtures I took my van to the big door of 
 the warehouse in Vine Court, and Rogers and Titiens took out 
 the things. In taking them out there was an interval, and I 
 went inside the warehouse by the big door. I perceived a heap 
 
 102
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 of ashes on the right-hand side as I went in, and some few H. Y 
 minutes afterwards I noticed there was a very strong smell. I 
 can hardly describe the smell; it was very unpleasant indeed. 
 I mentioned it to Titiens, and said that the drains were out of 
 order. We both observed it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT I knew soon afterwards that 
 Henry Wainwright was in custody, and I knew of some of the 
 details of Stokes' s evidence. It was a good time after the arrest 
 of Henry Wainwright before I made any statement; it might 
 have been in November. I talked it over first with my father, 
 and I believe he communicated with Inspector M' Donald. A few 
 days after that Inspector M'Donald came to see me, and after 
 a week had elapsed, or a little more, from the time of the con- 
 versation with my father, I saw some one connected with the 
 Treasury. I did not come to the Central Criminal Court with all 
 the witnesses to go before the grand jury. During the last nine 
 months I have been on business to Collier's Yard, Gloucester 
 Street, a great many times. There are sheds round the yard, 
 and the middle is uncovered. Altogether the premises might be 
 about half an acre in extent. The sheds were the ordinary sheds, 
 with doors that could be locked, and stores were kept in them. 
 When I was at the stores on the occasion referred to in April 
 last, I was there about an hour and a half I should think. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I had known Thomas Wain- 
 wright for many years, and had seen him since July. I don't 
 know that I could fix the time of seeing him except by another 
 witness. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How could another witness prove 
 that? The prisoner was riding about with us all day long, and 
 another witness can prove that. 
 
 Cross-examination continued May not the interview you 
 speak to on the llth have occurred on the 10th? No, it was on 
 the llth. 
 
 There was nothing at the time very special to call your atten- 
 tion to their being together? No, I had seen them together 
 before. 
 
 When did you first mention that fact? I mentioned it the 
 same evening. I spoke to several tradesmen of Whitechapel who 
 were talking about the arrest. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You say it was the subject of 
 conversation the same evening? It was. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY -GENERAL There was a great 
 deal of talk in the neighbourhood at the time, and I spoke about 
 it to my father. Inspector M 'Donald then came to my father'8 
 
 103
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 H. Young house. I do not live there, and I was sent for, and it was then 
 I made my statement. 
 
 Do you remember whether it was this month or last? I think 
 it was in November. 
 
 Do you remember that you were asked to oome to this Court 
 last session 1 Yes, but not to go before the grand jury. I came 
 to this Court as a witness. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I have been reconsidering my 
 decision not to allow any questions to be put as to the contents 
 of the letter which the prisoner, Henry Wainwright, directed 
 Rogers to take to Tredegar Square, and I think I ought, in 
 justice to the prosecution and to the prisoner, to allow the 
 question to be put to Rogers. Therefore I will allow you to 
 recall him. 
 
 Mr. BESLEY said that in the exercise of his discretion at the 
 time, as the existence and contents of the destroyed document 
 depended on the witness who had to give the secondary evidence, 
 he had declined to put any questions. 
 
 The LOED CHIEF JUSTICE Of course, it is open to you to tell 
 the jury to disbelieve everything the witness has said. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am bound to say that the 
 witness's statement had never been communicated to me or to my 
 learned friends. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Still, I think that the witness, 
 having seen the scene which he described, and the woman King 
 having torn the letter in his hand, and he having received the 
 letter and read it, it would be best to have its contents. 
 
 G.W.Rogers GEORGE WILLIAM ROGERS, recalled, examined by the 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL You told us that on one occasion Henry 
 Wainwright called you downstairs, and that he gave you a letter ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And you say that Harriet Lane snatched at it in your hand, 
 and that you afterwards went outside and read it? Yes. 
 
 Was that letter afterwards destroyed? Yes. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You destroyed it yourself? I 
 threw it into the fireplace. 
 
 Examination continued Go slowly now, and tell us, to the 
 best of your recollection, what the contents of the letter were. 
 Tell us, first, was that letter in Henry Wainwright's handwrit- 
 ing 1 It was . I cannot recollect all of it, but it was ' ' I cannot 
 survive the disgrace, and you will never see me any more," or 
 something to that effect. That is as much as I can recollect 
 of it. 
 
 104
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICB Was there any particular cir- G. W. Rogers 
 cumstance referred to as causing the "disgrace"! No, he 
 referred to nothing particular in that letter. 
 
 Examination continued It was in an envelope? Yes. It 
 was addressed to " Mrs. Wainwright, 40 Tredegar Square." 
 
 How did it commence? I don't think it commenced in any 
 terms, but began, " I cannot survive the disgrace." 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There was nothing to show, as 
 far as you can recollect, what that " disgrace " was? Nothing 
 whatever. 
 
 Examination continued How soon after you read the letter 
 did you see the prisoner Henry Wainwright? I think in about 
 half an hour. I got outside and went for a walk, and when I 
 came back I met him outside the door and told him I had not 
 taken the letter. I did not tell him why, and I cannot remember 
 what he said. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did you see him coming out? I 
 met him just outside the door. 
 
 Mr. BESLET I have no questions to ask on that. 
 
 GEORGE WILLIAM FORSTEB (detective sergeant H), examined G. W. Porstor 
 I took the prisoner Thomas into custody on 1st October in the 
 Fulham Road, near Parson's Green. I told him I was going to 
 apprehend him on a warrant for deserting his wife and children. 
 
 What did he say? He asked me to show him the warrant, 
 and I told him I had not got the warrant with me, but I had 
 seen it. I took him. to Leman Street police station, and on the 
 following night he was taken to Clerkenwell Police Court. That 
 charge was dismissed. On the previous day, the 1st, the 
 adjourned inquest had been held, and on the following day I 
 took him again upon the present charge. I was in the waiting 
 room at Clerkenwell Police Court waiting with the prisoner to 
 have the charge heard before the magistrate, and he said to me, 
 " I suppose there will be another charge preferred against me 
 in reference to the spade and axe? " I said, " I expect so." 
 He said, " I was not coming forward voluntarily to give evidence 
 against my brother, but to save myself I had better speak the 
 truth." He then was going to make a statement, and I said, 
 " Stop a moment. What you are going to say I will take down 
 in writing, so that there may be no mistake ; it may be used in 
 evidence against you." He then made a statement, which I 
 took down in the book now before me. He said, " I bought a 
 spade and wood chopper on Friday, 10th September, for my 
 brother at Mr. Pettigrew's, 181 Whitechapel Road, for which I 
 paid 3s., and charged him 6s., he having stated that he wanted 
 
 105
 
 Th e Wain wright s . 
 
 G. W. Forster them for his house at Chingford." I showed him what I had 
 written. He was looking at me while I wrote. I asked him 
 whether it was correct, and he said " Yes." I then said, " I 
 have seen Mr. Pettigrew, and shown him the axe and spade, 
 and he states that you bought them, or similar ones, of him." 
 He said, " That is quite right. We went round the corner, and 
 Mr. Pettigrew had a glass of brandy, and I had a glass of stout." 
 That is all that passed. After the charge was dismissed there 
 he was taken over to the Southwark police station, and thence 
 to the Court. 
 
 I received five envelopes from Mrs. Taylor. One of them 
 contained the letter marked I. This is the envelope that con- 
 tained it (produced). I took out the note and read it. When I 
 had read it I put it back into the same envelope I had taken it 
 from, marked it, put it into my pocket book, and gave it to Mr. 
 Poland at the Police Court. I remember the letter very well. 
 The envelope had the postmark of 5th September upon it, and 
 the letter began " Dear Pet." The other envelopes were also 
 produced at the Court. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I have stated that I took 
 Thomas Wainwright into custody on the day of the first hearing 
 of the charge against Henry, but I find that it was a mistake : 
 my meaning was the first day I was at the Police Court was on 
 the Monday after 13th September. I knew the warrant was out 
 against Thomas, but I did not arrest him until the 20th. I 
 cannot tell the day on which the warrant was actually issued. 
 He spoke to me about the spade and the chopper prior to going 
 before Mr. Hannay, but I did not mention anything to him about 
 the charge until after he was discharged. Mr. Pettigrew, who 
 has been in business many years in the Whitechapel Road, told 
 me that he knew both prisoners well. I did not know Thomas 
 Wainwright, but I have seen him once before. I had his address 
 given to me by Mr. Mason, the warrant officer. I had not 
 known it before. 
 
 J. C. M'Donald JAMBS CONSTANTINE M'DONALD, recalled, re-examined I was 
 
 at the Southwark police station when the prisoner Thomas was 
 there. He said, " Shall I be taken across to the Court this 
 afternoon ? " I said, " Yes ; and you will be charged with being 
 an accessory after the fact to the murder of Harriet Louisa Lane. 
 We have found out that you purchased the spade and axe, and 
 that will be proved. ' ' He replied, ' ' I will tell you all about it. ' ' 
 I replied, " If you wish to say anything, you had better put it in 
 writing." I furnished him with pen and ink and paper, and 
 he wrote the statement produced. 
 106
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 Did he say anything at the time? Yes; he said his brother J.C. M'Donald 
 was a very good fellow, and he only did what one brother would 
 do for another. He signed the paper in my presence. 
 
 [The statement of Thomas Wainwright was put in. It was 
 dated " 2nd October, 1875," signed by Thomas Wainwright, and 
 headed " Statement of Facts." It was as follows : " I beg to 
 state that on Friday, 10th September, at 12.30, I was with some 
 friends at the Black Lion, Bishopsgate Street. From there I 
 called on my brother Henry at Mr. Martin's. He then asked 
 rne if I would go and buy for him a garden spade and a chopper 
 for chopping wood. I then went to Mr. Pettigrew's, an iron- 
 monger in Whitechapel Road, and purchased the articles, for 
 which I paid 3s., and charged my brother 5s. I was with Mr. 
 Pettigrew, I dare say, half or three-quarters of an hour. We 
 went and had a drink together, for which, I think, I paid. I 
 then took the parcel, which was in a sheet of brown paper, to 
 my brother at 78 New Road. I then left him. I met Mr. 
 Martin, and went into Clayten's, in Whitechapel, and had some 
 sherry. That was about 2.30. From there I went to Gold's 
 and had my dinner; from there to the Black Lion, Bishopsgate 
 Street, and from there to 1 Racquet Court, Fleet Street, about 
 4.30, and from there to the Surrey Gardens, and remained 
 with at least a dozen friends until 10.45 p.m. (Sgd.) Thomas 
 G. Wainwright."] 
 
 I saw some keys taken from Thomas at the station, which 
 I produce. I tried one of them on the padlock taken from th^ 
 door of the Hen and Chickens, and produced by Fox, and found 
 that it would lock that padlock. It does not appear to me to be 
 the proper key. I have seen the other key that was taken from 
 Henry. 
 
 THOMAS HHNN, examined I am a butcher at Parson's Green. Thomas Hen* 
 I knew Thomas Wainwright, who was living at Parson's Green 
 for about twelve months at the Rosamond. He lived there up to 
 the time he was taken into custody. He passed my shop in the 
 morning. I did not supply him with meat. I supplied a person 
 named Raper in the house with meat. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Was Raper a person lodging in 
 the house? Raper was the owner of the house, and Wainwright 
 was a lodger. I knew Thomas Wainwright lived there, because 
 some goods came to the house for him, and I told the man where 
 it was. I have seen him at the house. It is a cottage. I have 
 seen Thomas go to the house and come away from it, but I have 
 never seen him in it. 
 
 107
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is very unsatisfactory evi- 
 dence. Where is the man who was in his service in the Borough? 
 
 W. Archer WALTER ARCHER, recalled, re-examined I was in Thomas 
 Wainwright's service from January to June, 1875. During the 
 first part of the time, in February and March, he was living at 
 33 Fentiman Road, Clapham, and the latter part of the time at 
 the Rosamond, Parson's Green, Fulham. I cannot say whether 
 he was on a visit to the Rosamond. Mrs. Raper from there used 
 to visit him at the Hen and Chickens. 
 
 F.Pettigrew FREDERICK PETTIGREW, examined by Mr. BEASLET I am an 
 ironmonger, carrying on business at 81 Whitechapel Road. I 
 knew Henry and Thomas Wainwright. I remember selling a 
 spade and an axe to Thomas Wainwright on 10th September, 
 between twelve and one o'clock in the day. I charged him 3s. 
 for the two, because he was in the trade. The retail price was 
 5s. It would be impossible for me to say if the spade and axe 
 produced are the same, because I supply other ironmongers with 
 the same sort of articles. 
 
 Can you say positively that these articles passed through your 
 hands? Yes; from the marks upon them I know they have 
 passed through my hands. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I have known Thomas for 
 eight or nine years. 
 
 When you were applied to about it, you could not remember 
 the day he came ? That is quite true. 
 
 You say you are in the habit of supplying other ironmongers 
 in Whitechapel? Yes ; I send goods to some of them. The mark 
 on the axe is " H. H." and Is. 9d. The " H. H." means the 
 cost price, and Is. 9d. means the selling price. The marks 
 were put on by myself, and would be known by any person to 
 whom I supplied goods. The spade is marked in a similar way. 
 
 You had not seen him for some few months before this 
 occurrence? I had not. 
 
 And when you did see him, you noticed no change in his 
 appearance? No. I had some refreshment with him. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You said in your examination- 
 in-chief that this spade and axe were sold on 10th September. 
 What means have you for fixing the date? I said about 10th 
 September. I am not certain as to the date. I cannot tell whv 
 I fixed it for the 10th. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Probably from hearing of this 
 matter from the papers. 
 
 108
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 FRANCIS JOHNSTON, examined by the ATTORNEY-GHNERAL, I p. Johnston 
 am a builder and decorator, residing at the Mount, Whitechapel 
 Road. I know Henry Wainwright. Some time in 1874 I got 
 instructions from him to repair his premises at 215 Whitechapel 
 Road. I stippled a window in the warehouse, looking through 
 which from the kitchen one could see into the warehouse. By 
 "stippled" I mean obscured so that it could not be seen 
 through. This window is in the wall nearest the Whitechapel 
 Road. There was a pane of broken glass in it. When it was 
 stippled one could not see from the kitchen window, nor from 
 the skylight into the warehouse, nor vice versa. This and other 
 work occupied from the Monday, the 2nd, to Saturday, the 
 21st November. The house was vacant during that period. We 
 were doing general repairs in the warehouse. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Rogers went into the house as 
 soon as I had finished the repairs. 
 
 Examination continued I remember a meeting of Henry 
 Wainwright' s creditors, of whom I was one. It took place 
 in July of the present year. A committee of inspection was 
 appointed. I was a member. After the committee was 
 appointed, I saw on a Friday evening in the beginning of 
 August some fixtures being taken away from No. 215, from the 
 back part at Vine Court. I was talking to Mr. Wilcox. The 
 fixtures were being removed by some of Mr. Martin's men. I 
 spoke to them, and after another truck-load had been taken I 
 saw Henry Wainwright passing. I did not speak to him. This 
 was between eight and nine in the evening of a Friday, and 
 it was in the early part of August. I am still on the committee 
 of investigation. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT I know the difference be- 
 tween liquidation by arrangement on the petition of the debtor 
 and the adjudication of bankruptcy by an adverse creditor. 
 The July meeting was not the first meeting under the petition 
 for liquidation by arrangement. 
 
 Is it not a fact that before the second meeting for receiving 
 a proposal from the debtor he was in custody on this charge, and 
 afterwards the proceedings were turned into bankruptcy? I 
 think it was so. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Last year there was a liquidation 
 by arrangement. This year there were proceedings in bank- 
 ruptcy. I was on the former occasion a creditor also. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Do you not know that these 
 fixtures removed in August were sold to Mr. Martin by the 
 
 109
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 F. Johnston sanction of the trustee? I heard afterwards that a portion of 
 them had been so sold. 
 
 The repairs you spoke of were necessary to make the house 
 habitable for Rogers? Yes. Rogers saw me doing the repairs. 
 A pane of glass was broken in the window, and a new one 
 replaced it, and all were stippled the same colour. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Henry Wainwright told me he 
 intended to let the house, and that therefore the window required 
 to be stippled and the glass repaired, so that the view of the 
 tenant might be shut out from the warehouse. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY -GENERAL He told me that 
 he thought of letting it when he gave me instructions to repair 
 the house and to have the window stippled. I said that I 
 thought it was a very good suggestion that they should not see 
 from the dwelling-house into the warehouse. I was a creditor 
 under the liquidation of 1874. There was a dissolution of 
 partnership between Henry Wainwright and Sawyer. The 
 liquidation was by arrangement. The creditors were before 
 Mr. Sawyer came into the firm in about November ; the bank- 
 ruptcy was in 1875. There was only an arrangement with 
 creditors in 1874. The creditors of Henry Wainwright were 
 paid 12s. in the pound 6s. and, I think, two 3s. It is in 
 bankruptcy now. 
 
 C. L'Enfant CHARLES GROJEAST RENME L'ENFANT, examined by the 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court, and 
 produce the books of the Court detailing the proceedings there 
 with reference to the affairs of Henry Wainwright. There was 
 a proceeding for the liquidation of Wainwright's affairs in 1874, 
 and a meeting on 15th March, 1874, at which a resolution was 
 come to, to accept 12s. in the pound, 6s. in seven days, 3s. 
 within a period of three mouths, and 3s. within a period of 
 six months from that time. In 1875, 30th June, there were 
 proceedings in bankruptcy on the petition of one of the creditors. 
 Wainwright was then declared bankrupt, and the proceedings 
 in that bankruptcy are still pending. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET The person petitioning in 
 bankruptcy was one of the creditors under the liquidation pro- 
 ceedings, on account of the non-payment of the third instalment 
 of 3s. That does not appear in the official records. The declara- 
 tion of bankruptcy was on 30th June, 1875, the first meeting 
 of creditors in July, and the second meeting was in November, 
 1875. Nothing was done between the first and second meeting. 
 The prisoner was arrested in the interval. 
 
 110
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 CHARLES CHABOT, examined I am an expert in handwriting, C. Cbabot 
 and live in Red Lion Square. I have examined the letter E and 
 the documents placed in my hands, together with one headed 
 " Statement of facts," written and signed by Thomas Wain- 
 wright. The papers I have before me are the " Statement of 
 facts," marked 1; a letter, from Thomas Wainwright to Mrs. 
 E. Lewis, marked 2; another letter, signed Thomas Wainwright, 
 dated Wednesday evening, 29th May, 1875, marked 3; a letter, 
 signed Thomas George Wainwright, which is dated 26th July, 
 1875, and not addressed to any person; and a letter, dated 21st 
 November, 1874, to Mr. George Lewis, signed T. Wainwright. 
 Those documents are all in the same handwriting. I have no 
 doubt whatever that the person who wrote the letter E wrote 
 the others. Letter E is not a disguised handwriting. It is 
 the bona fide handwriting of the person who penned it. 
 
 Mr. MOODY I have never disputed letter E or the state- 
 ment; but I must object to Mr. Chabot as an expert being asked 
 to form his opinion on another person's opinion. I submit that 
 he cannot take letters said by Lewis to be, he believed, in 
 Thomas Wainwright's handwriting, but which he did not see 
 him write, as any foundation for his comparisons. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said several of the documents had 
 been proved by Lewis to be in the handwriting of Thomas 
 Wainwright. 
 
 Mr. MOODY Mr. Chabot may say that from his knowledge 
 of handwriting and his experience this second document was 
 penned by the hand which wrote the first, but it is still a matter 
 of reasoning and of opinion. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I have no doubt that this evidence 
 is admissible, but, on the other hand, in a case of this kind, it 
 is unwise to press the evidence of Mr. Chabot beyond the point 
 on which it is founded on undoubted documents. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL He has got letter marked 1 and 2, 
 which are undoubted, and is not that enough? (To Witness) 
 You have got a paper marked No. 1, and headed " Statement 
 of facts " the statement made by Thomas Wainwright after 
 his arrest, being his own explanation of the purchase of the 
 shovel and chopper? I have. 
 
 And you have a letter, dated 29th May, 1875, marked 
 No. 2? I have. 
 
 Will you give your opinion as to the letter (the one signed 
 " E. Frieake," and dated from Dover) as compared with the 
 "Statement of facts" and the letter dated 29th May, 1875 1 
 Am I to exclude the other letters? It is by comparison with 
 
 111
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 C. Chabot them that the most important facts arise. I now have all the 
 documents here. I may have seen this paper (another) at the 
 Police Court. It is dated 10th May ; it is in Thomas Wain- 
 wright's writing; I can see that. I do not wish to refer to it, 
 but there are some points in it which are useful. In letter E 
 here are the words " I am," and the "I " is connected with 
 the " a " in a very distinct manner; and in the concluding 
 word of the letter marked 4 the words " I am " are as nearly 
 as possible identical with the words " I am " in letter E. The 
 word "Wednesday" in the memorandum has all the charac- 
 teristics of the word " Wednesday " in letter E; there is a 
 break in the middle of the word, and the " d " in the middle 
 of the word is made in the same way, and the " y " is made in 
 the same way. There is a little difference in the " W." The 
 manner in which the " t's " are crossed is conspicuous, but the 
 whole word is conspicuous in agreement. The letter " r " of 
 the word " Frieake " in the signature to letter E is like the letter 
 " r " in the word " trunks " in the memorandum of 29th May; 
 it is also like the " r " in the word " remain " in the twenty- 
 second line of the statement marked 1. The " d's " in the 
 word " friends " in letter E is extremely characteristic, and the 
 formation of the " d's " in the word " goods " in memorandum 
 2 and in this document are equally characteristic. The " s " is, 
 as it were, looped on to the " d." The formation of the 
 final letter " y " is very characteristic in the writing of Thomas 
 Wainwright, and it is very conspicuous in the letter E. There 
 are two instances in letter E where the words " rashly" and 
 " kindly " follow each other, that only occurs once in the letter 
 E in the word " solemnly," and in line eight in the word " any," 
 in line ten in the word " marry," and on page four, line two, 
 in the word " distinctively." The same remark applies to the 
 "y " in the word " sherry," and in the statement of facts in 
 lines fourteen and seventeen the word, too, is characteristic. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Besides the characteristic letters 
 to which you have referred, does not the general character of the 
 two hands strike you? Yes, undoubtedly. 
 
 Have you any doubt as to their being the same ? I am per- 
 fectly satisfied in this instance of the general character being the 
 same, but I do not rely wholly on the general character. 
 
 What is your opinion of the handwriting? It is a very good 
 handwriting of a very common stamp. But I did not take those 
 letters and form an opinion at once, for I found there were strong 
 characteristics of the handwriting, so much so as to leave no 
 doubt whatever in my mind. 
 
 112
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 [On this positive expression on the part of the witness, the c. Chabot 
 Lord Chief Justice submitted to the prosecution that they had 
 carried the matter of comparison of handwriting quite far 
 enough.] 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY You have said that the writ- 
 ing is entirely undisguised, and that it would not require such 
 skill as yours to detect the similarity in the writing? It is 
 undisguised, and is an honestly written letter so far as the hand- 
 writing is concerned. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There is a letter of the 16th of 
 February from Henry Wainwright, which was found in Harriet 
 Lane's box. Although I referred to it in my opening, I do not 
 think it has been read yet. It is one of the letters which was 
 spoken to as having been given to him by Mr. Lane. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is no doubt as to the hand- 
 writing. 
 
 Mr. BESLBY I don't say it is not a genuine letter, but there 
 is no proved connection between the envelope and the letter. It 
 came from Mrs. Lane, who is not a witness, and it might not 
 be the letter that was sent in the envelope. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I can only admit it as a letter of 
 Henry Wainwright's, and not as the letter that came out of 
 the envelope in which it now is. 
 
 [The letter, which was read by the Clerk of the Court, was 
 signed " P. King." It ran as follows : 
 
 ' ' I have told you I object to you writing to me at present. 
 I will meet you on Saturday at four o'clock at the same place 
 as last Saturday." 
 
 The envelope was dated 16th February, 1874, and was 
 addressed to Mrs. King, Mrs. Wells, 70 St. Peter's Street, 
 Hackney Road. The initials " E. W." were on the envelope.] 
 
 [Another letter (marked " B ") was also read, as follows : 
 
 " Dear Madam, Since I wrote to you yesterday I have heard 
 news of them. I will see Miss Wilmore, and let her know about 
 it. In haste, yours, P. King."] 
 
 HENRY WILLIAM FRENCH, examined by Mr. BEASLBY I am a H. W. French 
 locksmith, living in Kent Street, in the Borough. I have 
 examined a padlock and two keys (produced). The key produced 
 by Inspector Fox is the proper key of the lock. The other key 
 produced by Inspector M 'Donald is not the proper key, although 
 it will open the lock. It was made for a different- sized 
 lock. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. MOODY I have not opened the lock 
 for examination. I speak from the fact of one of the keys not 
 
 i 113
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 H. W. French fitting so well as the other. It is a common lock ; both keys 
 will open it, but one is not large enough. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This key was found upon Thomas 
 Wainwright, and by accident it will open the lock, but that is 
 no reason for saying that he knew that it would open the pad- 
 lock. There is nothing in this. 
 
 V. G. Larkin FREDERICK GEORGE LARKIN, examined by the ATTORNEY- 
 GENERAL I am a surgeon, practising at 44 Trinity Square. I 
 was called to see the remains of a human body before half-past 
 five on the afternoon of llth September. I was shown two 
 parcels containing the remains of a female human body. I 
 then made a short examination, and on the Monday gave some 
 evidence. Some portions of the body were mummified. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Really, I don't understand what 
 you mean? Dried. 
 
 Examination continued Some parts were moist and decom- 
 posed, in a state known as adipocere. The parts had been 
 separated very unscientifically. The body had been divided into 
 ten parts head and neck one part, two hands, two arms, one 
 trunk, two thighs, and two legs and feet connected. 
 
 Did you notice on the first occasion that a portion of the pelvis 
 was absent from the trunk? Yes; there were fragments of the 
 pelvis attached to the thighs, and a portion of the kneecap to 
 the right thigh, another part of the kneecap was connected with 
 the left leg. Upon the hair was dried blood. The body had 
 been recently divided. 
 
 Did you form any opinion at first as to how long the body 
 had been dead? At the time, only that it had been a long 
 time dead. 
 
 Did you subsequently examine the remains? Yes, on Monday 
 morning, the 13th, before I gave my evidence, simply to identify 
 the parts. I found that the parts taken together made up a 
 body. Afterwards, on the 14th, I made another partial 
 examination of the body with Mr. Smith. We then removed the 
 viscera, and I observed a cut in the throat. I removed all the 
 viscera, except the brain, which, being in a soft, watery con- 
 dition, I left for subsequent examination. I put each viscus 
 into a separate jar, which had been thoroughly cleaned out with 
 distilled water, for any possible subsequent examination. Those 
 jars were sealed up and locked in the vestry. I kept the key. 
 Mr. Bond and I together made an examination on the 16th. 
 The age of the woman whose body we were examining appeared 
 to be about twenty-five years. 
 
 114
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 How did you form that opinion ? I was led to this conclusion F. G. Larkin 
 by the condition of the wisdom teeth, all of which, with the 
 exception of one, were cut, and that one was evidently being cut 
 at the time. Her make was slender; her height about 5 feet. 
 The hands and the feet were small proportionately to the rest . 
 of the body. I mean they were small for the body. To ascertain 
 the height we put the parts as nearly into position as possible, 
 and repeatedly measured them. The cutting up had been done 
 very roughly and very recently. I have seen the chopper pro- 
 duced. The body might have been cut up with such an instru- 
 ment. A knife might have been used for cutting some parta. 
 There was a very great deal of dirt on the body, mixed with 
 chloride of lime. The effect of chloride of lime thrown upon 
 a body would tend to preserve the external parts more especi- 
 ally. It is a disinfectant. It retards the decomposition of 
 those parts with which it comes in contact. Its principal 
 agency is to deodorise. 
 
 What is the effect of quicklime ? 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did you find any quicklime? 
 No. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I perhaps ought not to have asked 
 the question, but I was anxious to have the effect of lime 
 proper. (To Witness) Did you examine the skull? We found 
 a fracture of the skull just behind and nearly level with the top 
 of the right ear. It was an old fracture. We found some bullets 
 in the head. On inspecting the interior of the skull we found one 
 bullet in the cerebellum. 
 
 Did that correspond with the fracture ? We could trace the 
 course of the fracture to where we found the bullet. We found 
 two bullets, and discovered the second before we found the 
 corresponding fracture. We found the second bullet lying on 
 the base of the skull, on a part known as the sphenoid bone. 
 By tracing the direction of that bullet outwards we found 
 another fracture in the skull just in front and nearly level 
 with the top of the same ear, just above that prominence of 
 bone which every one can feel, called the zygomatic arch. One 
 of the bullets had certainly entered during life. That was the 
 one behind the ear. The extravasation of blood led us to that 
 conclusion. It was underneath the scalp, and for a considerable 
 distance around the wound, and also slightly within the skull 
 in the direction in which the bullet had gone, having a diameter 
 of at least 2 inches. There was slight extravasation underneath 
 the scalp, in the direction in which the second bullet had gone. 
 That led to the conclusion that the bullet had entered the head 
 
 115
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 F. G. Larkin during life, while the circulation was active. Similar, but much 
 slighter, appearances of extravasation attended the entry of the 
 second bullet. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE My inference is that the pene- 
 tration of the second bullet was when life was fast ebbing. 
 Either would have produced death, but not necessarily in- 
 stantaneously. 
 
 Is that so? There is a remarkable case in which a bullet 
 was lodged in the brain, and did not immediately destroy life. 
 
 It must eventually have caused death? Oh, yes, if it lodged 
 there sufficient time for an abscess to be formed. 
 
 And it might have done so instantaneously ? It might. 
 
 Examination continued Did you find a third bullet? Yes, 
 later on. Having discovered the bullets, we turned our atten- 
 tion to her cut throat. It was a cut from right to left, beginning 
 just beyond the medial line on the right side of the middle of the 
 neck across to a point above opposite the angle of the lower jaw 
 on the left side. It had severed all the structures from the 
 windpipe down to the vertebrae. It extended about 2 inches to 
 the left, upwards and backwards, below and opposite the angle 
 of the lower jaw it must have severed the carotid artery. 
 That cut must have been made immediately before or immedi- 
 ately after death. The extravasation of blood in and about the 
 part led me to that conclusion. 
 
 Did the extravasation of blood imply that the circulation 
 was still going on? Had it been done at a time very remote 
 from death, the blood would not have been circulating. It was 
 a wound quite sufficient to cause death in a minute or two. 
 It was an old cut at the time I saw it. I removed the hair pad 
 off the head, took it home, and examined it, and found 
 a third bullet in it sticking very closely to it. There were also 
 in the pad an immense quantity of hairpins. I also took home 
 a piece of velvet ribbon. The hairpins in the pad were bent, 
 broken, and rusty. They were innumerable all over the pad, 
 and sufficient to have arrested the progress of a bullet. The pad 
 itself would help to do it. The velvet was in a rotten state, 
 more particularly the part saturated with blood. We gave the 
 bullets to Inspector Fox. The one I found in the pad was of a 
 different shape from the others. The other two were out of 
 shape, which would result from the way they entered the skull. 
 
 The one found in the pad is also flattened? More so than 
 either of the others. 
 
 When you were with Mr. Bond did you make an examination 
 to endeavour to ascertain whether the woman had borne a 
 
 116
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 child? We did make a little examination, and then I made p. G. Lartdn 
 further examination. 
 
 I believe you examined the hair? Not minutely, as far as 
 I am concerned. I took some of the hair away with me, 
 examined it, ultimately washed it, and gave it to Inspector 
 Forster. Washing it made it reasonably lighter. 
 
 Did you notice anything peculiar in one of the teeth when 
 you were examining with Mr. Bond? I did. There was one 
 and only one as far as I saw decayed down level with the 
 jaw. It was the next behind the eye tooth on the right side. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE From the position which the 
 tooth occupied in the mouth, do you think it would have been 
 visible when she was laughing or smiling? It might; in fact, 
 I will undertake to say it would. 
 
 Examination continued Did you notice anything else with 
 respect to the teeth? There were some missing. With the 
 exception of that decayed one, they were a good set of teeth. 
 The only other point I noticed about the teeth was that the 
 remaining incisor tooth at the top indicated that it might have 
 been slightly prominent during life. 
 
 Did you notice anything about the ears? I could only see 
 the remains of one ear, but I could see that it had been pierced 
 for an earring. I think I have now described the various 
 matters to which my attention was directed, which I examined 
 with Mr. Bond. The examination with Mr. Bond was on the 
 16th. 
 
 You say you made a further examination for the purpose of 
 seeing whether the woman had borne a child? Yes, I did; and 
 that examination gave me a strong idea that the uterus was 
 that of a person who had been a mother. 
 
 Suppose the body had not been in a state of decomposition, 
 could you have ascertained the fact with certainty or not? I 
 should speak nearly as positively as I do now. This is only 
 my opinion, however. 
 
 Your attention was not at first, I believe, directed to the 
 fact that it was alleged that there was a scar on the leg? No, 
 not at first. My attention was first directed to that when I 
 heard Mr. Lane's statement in the Police Court. 
 
 When you first saw the body, was it in such a condition 
 that if a scar existed you could have observed it? It was 
 perfectly impossible for any one to find it unless they made 
 diligent search for it, on account of the state of decomposition. 
 
 After Mr. Lane had given his evidence on 21st September, 
 did you and Mr. Bond make an examination for the purpose of 
 
 117
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 F. G.Larkln ascertaining whether there was or was not a scar? We did. 
 We made the examination in the presence of the surgeon, Mr. 
 Aubyn, who was there on behalf of Henry Wainwright. We 
 examined the left leg first, and then the right leg, and we found 
 a scar on the right leg about 4 inches below the middle of knee. 
 It was very much puckered, an elongated scar running diagon- 
 ally from upwards down the outside of the leg. It was about 
 the size of a shilling, but the puckering was much bigger, that 
 is the way the skin was drawn. It was such a soar as very 
 possibly would be produced by a red-hot poker falling on the 
 part. 
 
 Have you seen a pair of boots produced by Inspector Fox ? 
 I have. 
 
 What do you say about them ? I have compared one of them 
 with the corresponding foot, and in my opinion it would fit. 
 I went to the warehouse, 215 Whitechapel Road, and on the flags 
 I saw the remains of stains which might have been produced 
 by chopping up the body, but I cannot say what those stains 
 were. 
 
 I think you said there were some teeth missing? I did. 
 One I picked up myself in the original parcel of the remains, 
 and the others that were missing Mr. Bond had given me. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How many were missing? 
 Both upper incisors I think the left eye tooth on the upper 
 jaw, and one or both of the lower incisors. However, they were 
 found and replaced, and only two, the left lower incisor and the 
 right upper incisor were then missing, and they have never 
 been found. 
 
 Do you know how the teeth came out of the jaw? That 
 is very easily accounted for. It is a well-known fact that when 
 the gum recedes from the jaw, and the jaw becomes dry, the 
 teeth are very apt to fall out. 
 
 It would not require any violence? No. The natural 
 progress of decay is quite sufficient to account for their falling 
 out. 
 
 Examination continued Could you form any idea as to how 
 long the woman had been dead? Only a rough idea. I should 
 say from nine or twelve months. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If I understand you right, 
 chloride of lime, when it came in contact with the body, would 
 have the effect of retarding decomposition ? Yes, I don't think, 
 however, it would affect the internal parts. I don't say it might 
 not, though, to a certain extent. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLET You say, speaking roughly, 
 
 118
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 you suppose death to have occurred from nine to twelve months. F. G. Larkln 
 But is it not impossible from the state of decomposition of a 
 body to judge how long a person has been dead? I would not 
 swear. 
 
 Is it not scientifically impossible? It is, to give the exact 
 date. 
 
 What do you mean by extravasation? An oozing of the 
 blood. 
 
 May there not be extravasation of venous as well as of 
 arterial blood? Oh, yes. 
 
 Is it not a fact that in some subjects the blood of a dead 
 person will not coagulate? Some of it will coagulate, and some 
 will not ? I don't know that I quite understand you. 
 
 As I understand the matter, venous blood will extravasate, 
 but it will not coagulate? It is so in some subjects. 
 
 You are aware there are well authenticated instances of 
 blood extravasating and coagulating four days, and two days, 
 after death ? No; I do not know of four days or two days, but I 
 have not directed my studies to that. The head was decomposed 
 in proportion to the rest of the body ; not more. It was in an 
 advanced stage of decomposition. 
 
 Were not some of the parts of the remains more greasy, or 
 in the state which you have described as adipocere, but more 
 in the state you have described as mummified? I think there 
 was more of the body mummified. 
 
 Is the stage before that, known as adipocere, that in which 
 the body swells and gases are evolved? It may be so; I have 
 not gone much into that. 
 
 You don't know that a body, when first becoming decom- 
 posed, swells and gives out gases which may be burnt? I have 
 heard of that. 
 
 Does the stage vary according to the person when the evolu- 
 tion of gases ceases, and the state known as adipocere com- 
 mences? Is not the stage well defined between the two? I don't 
 think the stage is well defined. 
 
 Your experience has not been so great as to have such a 
 case as this within your knowledge? I never had one before. 
 I have never examined a body in that stage of decomposition. 
 
 You did not make at your several examinations an exhaustive 
 report? I made an exhaustive report. 
 
 How many examinations did you make? About four, I 
 think. 
 
 At how many examinations had Mr. Bond been present 
 before the scar was found? One or two, I think. I did not see 
 
 119
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 F. G. Larkin Mr. Bond cut out the scar on the leg, nor did I see Mr. Aubyn 
 cut out anything from the other leg, but I heard him say that 
 he should. He called my attention to what he said might be a 
 scar on the other leg. 
 
 Were there altogether as many as twelve examinations? 
 If the slight examinations of the remains or part of the remains 
 were taken into account, it would be as many as that. The 
 remains were very dirty. 
 
 In appearance were the remains a dark brown? They were 
 dark. 
 
 Was there any flesh on the face? A slight portion on the 
 right sidle. 
 
 All the soft parts were decomposed ? Yes ; the eyes were 
 much changed, and shrunken back into the socket. 
 
 It was quite impossible, then, for any one to recognise the 
 features? Certainly, unless it was the cheekbones. I should 
 have thought the chloride of lime would tend to bleach the parts, 
 but I have made no experiment to know. 
 
 Was the scalp entire? No; it was not all there; a great 
 deal of the back of it was there, but not all of it, especially 
 where the wound was; it was drawn back. 
 
 Are you able to say that the scalp at the places of the two 
 orifices was capable of being dissected ? Certainly not, especially 
 in the case of the front one. The fracture behind the ear was 
 not a round hole, but the front was perforated. Some of the 
 bone was carried away. 
 
 Was the brain in such a state that you could follow the 
 direction of the bullet ? Only by following the direction of the 
 dura-mater, the covering of the brain. 
 
 The brain was in such a pulpy state that you did not like to 
 remove it ? It was. 
 
 Then how do you form your opinion as to the course of the 
 bullet? By a mark on the inner part of the skull. 
 
 Are not the causes of death from gunshot wounds either 
 from shock or haemorrhage? I have not sufficiently studied the 
 matter, but that would be the common-sense view. 
 
 Don't you know that there are cases of men living six days 
 after receiving a bullet in the brain ? I think it is possible. I 
 have heard of such cases. 
 
 And is it not possible for a person to cry out after receiving 
 a bullet in the brain? Yes. 
 
 And is it not a fact that a man who has shot himself 
 through the brain has cried out, and placed himself in a par- 
 ticular attitude 1 
 
 120
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you mean in a studied attitude? P.O. Larkin 
 
 Mr. BESLBT Yes, I read that in " Taylor." 
 
 The WITNESS I cannot say. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Could you say, in the case of 
 two shots being fired within three seconds, whether death 
 resulted from the first or the second? No. In this case I can 
 only give it as my opinion that it would have been impossible 
 if the first wound behind the ear had been inflicted shortly after 
 death, or closely after death, for the bullet to have got so far 
 under the scalp as it did. In the state in which the remains were 
 I could not point to the exact spot in the scalp where the bullet 
 had got to the skull. There is nothing by which I could say 
 whether the bullet in the pad was from the first, second, or 
 third shot. I am not quite clear as to the extent of the cut 
 into the vertebrae. It might have been done with an ordinary 
 knife. 
 
 What makes you say that you are inclined to the opinion 
 tthat this was the body of a person who had borne a child? 
 Why I am inclined to the opinion that the body was that of a 
 person who had borne a child is because the measurements of 
 the uterus were greater than those acknowledged to be the 
 measurements of a virgin uterus. Virgin uteri of adult women 
 are very much the same in measurement, also in weight and 
 general size, provided they are healthy. The external measure- 
 ment of a virgin uterus, including the substance, the extreme 
 length would be about 2 inches to 2f inches, and the breadth 
 about an inch and a third, while this uterus that I examined 
 was, as near as possible, 3 inches, and its breadth about 2 
 inches. Another reason for my opinion is the thinness of the 
 walls. I should say, taken conjointly, the front wall and the 
 back wall of a virgin uterus would measure about an inch, half an 
 inch one side and half an inch the other. There is no cavity; 
 the surfaces lie flat. After child-bearing the walls become 
 thinner, and, as near as I could say, the measurement of the 
 walls of this uterus were five-eighths of an inch. I think it is 
 not a fact that the walls get thicker after child-bearing, I 
 certainly shall not admit it. I cannot explain why they should 
 get thinner. I adhere to my opinion ; perhaps it is not worth 
 much. Another ground for my opinion is, that I have compared 
 this \iterus with the several uteri in the museum of Guy's 
 Hospital, both those of the virgin and those of persons who 
 have borne children, and it is certainly inconsistent to think it is 
 that of a virgin, because it is so unlike all what I see there 
 of virgin uteri. Another reason is, the condition of the walls 
 
 121
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 F. G.Larkin of the abdomen. In the state of decomposition it was possible 
 for me to form an inference. I do not give positive testimony 
 to any of it. At the lower part of the abdomen I observed 
 what appeared to be a scarred-like surface, a whitish colour, 
 and lower down the decomposition had progressed very rapidly 
 in between what appeared to be little cicatrices, little scars, 
 and as the surface of the abdomen would be there a little 
 irregular, uneven, I can quite understand that the decomposition 
 would in between those scarred places have gone on more 
 rapidly; that is only inference. I gather from all this that 
 after a woman had borne a child, of course the abdomen being 
 very much stretched during pregnancy (especially the latter 
 months of pregnancy), when the child is born, of course, it leaves 
 the abdomen in a flabby condition, and these scars are the result 
 of that, the contraction of the abdomen to a certain extent. 
 This appearance is just as consistent with a person who has 
 suffered in their lifetime from fever or dropsy, but I take it in 
 conjunction with what I have observed elsewhere. If I had had 
 the best opportunity of noticing what are called cicatrices, 1 
 should not have formed any different opinion. I met two or 
 three gentlemen with the uteri at Guy's Hospital, once before 
 I was cross-examined at the Southwark Police Court. I did 
 not find any hair on other parts of the body besides the head to 
 recognise it. I have not made any experiments as to the effect 
 of chloride of lime respecting its colour. 
 
 Would it be a natural inference to suppose that you would 
 find a furrowed finger if a woman had been wearing a wedding 
 ring for three or four years? Yes. These particular fingers 
 were not in such a state that you could trace the furrow of a 
 wedding ring. I made a careful examination for that purpose, 
 but I could not see anything it might possibly be traced in a 
 fresh subject. The condition of the hand was similar to the rest 
 in its greasy state. 
 
 Did you measure the foot? I measured the foot, and found 
 it 8 inches in length. That was not too large a foot for a 
 person 5 feet 1 inch in height. I cannot say it was a smaller 
 foot than I would expect to find in a woman of such a height. 
 The uterus weighed, as nearly as possible, 12 drachms, and one 
 source says a virgin uterus weighs 8 drachms. 
 
 You measured the body? I took the actual measurement of 
 the body from head to feet, and made it 5 feet. Through death 
 many months previously and decomposition the length might 
 be in excess of that during life. I can understand that the 
 decayed tooth could have been seen if she laughed, and must 
 
 122
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 hare been seen in smiling. I should not describe the whole F. G. Larkin 
 of the upper set of teeth as projecting very much; there was 
 nothing extraordinary about the teeth except that the central 
 incisors were slightly prominent. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY -GENERAL It would be per- 
 fectly impossible for the woman to have inflicted the wounds 
 found on her body herself. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Suppose the bullet that first 
 entered the brain allowed life to continue for some time, can 
 you form a judgment as to what its effect upon the sensibility 
 of a person would be ? Do you think a person would be in- pos- 
 session of his faculties when he got such a bullet as that in the 
 brain, so that he would be able to cut his own throat afterwards? 
 I cannot say. 
 
 * 
 
 THOMAS BOND, examined by Mr. POLAND I live at T. Bond 
 50 Parliament Street, Westminster, and am a Fellow of the Royal 
 College of Surgeons, assistant surgeon to the Westminster Hos- 
 pital, and Lecturer on Forensic Medicine at the Hospital. On 
 16th September last I saw the remains of this body at the dead- 
 house. Mr. Larkin was present. The body was that of a female 
 of short stature, about 5 feet in height, of slender make, limbs, 
 and body. I thought she was from twenty to twenty-five years 
 of age, and that the body had been dead many months. The 
 hands were slender, and covered with a greasy substance. The 
 skin underneath was dry and sunken. The feet were in the 
 same condition. As to the wedding ring, I think if there had 
 been a very deep furrow during life I should have found it. The 
 hand was a very slight one, the fingers very thin. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Would a ring worn upon the 
 finger make more or less of a furrow according as the hand was 
 full or thin ? It is obvious it would make a deeper furrow on a 
 fat hand than on a thin one. 
 
 If the ring were discontinued some time, would the furrow 
 still remain ? I cannot say. 
 
 Examination continued The boots (produced) could have 
 been worn by the deceased person. I found four teeth absent on 
 my first examination. Those in the head were all sound, with 
 the exception of one, when I examined them. That one was the 
 first bicuspid of the upper jaw, which was decayed almost to the 
 bone. I have seen that tooth decayed in persons when they 
 laughed. There was no means of telling whether the mouth was 
 small, as the features were quite gone. In the upper jaw the 
 left wisdom tooth was still uncut. I exposed it by cutting away 
 the mucous membrane. I noticed th'at the one remaining upper 
 
 123
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 T. Bond incisor was prominent when my attention had been called to it 
 by Mr. Aubyn. 
 
 The marks upon the body where it was out appeared to be 
 comparatively fresh, but the throat had been cut for a long time. 
 It commenced at the thyroid cartilage. It was cut from the 
 larynx to tihe angle of the lower jaw from right to left. Part of 
 the windpipe and the arteries were severed. I cannot say when 
 this was done, but I believe it was during life, or soon after 
 death,, at a long period anterior to my seeing it. Considerable 
 force must have been used. I examined the head. I heard Mr. 
 Larkin describe the fracture behind the right ear, and I agree 
 with him that it was an old fracture. I found the bullet in 
 the head, and was able to trace its course from the fracture 
 behind the ear. It had lodged in the cerebellum, and must 
 have gone there during life. I am sure of it from the blood 
 extravasated under the skull, and also under the dura-mater, 
 which is the lining of the skull. Blood was extravasated under 
 the scalp for a circumference of about 3 inches, and to the depth 
 of 1-16 of an inch into the substance of the scalp. I found a 
 second bullet in the base of the skull lying on the sphenoid bone. 
 I traced it outwards to an orifice by the right ear. I formed the 
 opinion that it had entered during life or immediately after death. 
 There was extravasation of blood under the scalp, but net to 
 so great an extent as where the first bullet had entered. It was 
 quite impossible after receiving those shots that a person could 
 have out her own throat, and it was perfectly impossible that a 
 person's throat being so cut she could have fired the shots 
 afterwards. 
 
 I am of opinion that this woman had borne children, but I 
 believe it to be impossible to give a positive opinion by an 
 inspection of the uterus. No scar could be seen at the first 
 examination, but in consequence of Mr. Lane's statement at the 
 Police Court, I made an examination. I scraped off the greasy 
 matter first from the left leg, and there was no scar. I then 
 scraped the right leg, and I found there a scar, on the outer 
 side of the leg, about 2 inches below the head of the fibula, or 
 3 inches below the joint of the knee. It was a very distinct 
 scar, about the size of a shilling. It was elongated from above 
 downwards and slightly backwards, thick and fibrous. The 
 skin was puckered a good deal in front of it, and the skin at 
 the back part of it was white. It was perfectly consistent with 
 the appearance of a burn from a red-hot poker. Till I scraped, 
 I could not see this scar. I cut it out. 
 
 Is it capable of being produced ? I have it in my pocket. 
 
 124
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 [The object was preserved in a white bottle filled with spirits, T. Bond 
 which was handed in the first instance to the bench.] 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It requires daylight to see it. 
 [The gas in the Court had been lit.] 
 
 The WITXESS Undoubtedly, my lord. 
 
 Examination continued You had the bullets, I believe, 
 which were found in the skull? I had. (The bullets were pro- 
 duced.) ihey are conical, and appear to have hit something. 
 The first which I found weighed 66 grains. The second which 
 I found weighed 78 grains. The third, which Mr. Larkin 
 found, weighed 82 grains. 
 
 Would not the bullet in the course of coming into contact 
 with bone be apt to lose lead? I know from experience that a 
 bullet loses lead by coming into contact with bone. 
 
 You saw the yard at the premises, 215 Whitechapel Road? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you notice before you went there any appearance of 
 chloride of lime on the remains? Yes, I did, and earth also. 
 
 You then went to the premises? I went into the premises at 
 No. 215 and examined the earth, and found a quantity of chloride 
 of lime mixed with the earth, and I saw some lumps of it which 
 had been picked out by Inspector Fox. I did not find any hairs 
 in the grave, but I saw some on the shovel. I took some of them, 
 and I compared them under a microscope with some of the hairs 
 on the body, and they corresponded in colour and substance and 
 in the marking of the medullary substance. I also compared 
 them with some shown me by Inspector Fox, and they corre- 
 sponded in the same way. I saw a chopper at the station. It 
 looked dirty, and smelt very like the remains. I agree that the 
 chopper might have been used for roughly cutting up the body. 
 
 Did you see any marks on the stones in the yard? Yes; I 
 saw marks on the stones that might have been produced by 
 chopping, pieces of the stone being broken, and I saw a faint, 
 smeary outline on the stones. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did the marks on the broken 
 stone appear to you to be greasy? Undoubtedly they were ; and 
 one corner piece of a step was clearly chopped off. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. BESLBT In the process of decomposi- 
 tion gases are evolved very soon after death, I believe to such 
 an extent that flame can be kindled with them, sometimes in a 
 much shorter period than a month or six weeks, sometimes in 
 two or three days. I am of opinion that the remains were 
 those of a woman who had borne a child, because the cavity 
 of the uterus was large in proportion to the thinness of the 
 walls : that was my reason then for that opinion. There were 
 
 125
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 T. Bond no indications to lead me to a contrary opinion. I have since 
 had another reason for thinking she had had a child. I have 
 had the uterus soaked, and it has swelled to at least three times 
 the size that it was when I first examined it, and now the walls 
 have become very much thicker, and the whole organ heavier 
 and larger than the healthy uterus of a virgin. The inference I 
 draw from that is that the uterus was then about its proper 
 size; when I first examined it it was exceedingly shrunken and 
 dry. I differ from Mr. Larkin that the bearing of children 
 thins the walls; I think it thickens them. The soaking process 
 commenced after my first examination, after the first evidence 
 at the Police Court, and after I was examined at the inquest, 
 within a day or two. Mr. Larkin soaked it; I did not. He told 
 me it was soaked in spirit and water. I saw it in the spirit 
 and water. I believe it has been kept there ever since. I did 
 not measure the walls before the soaking process ; they were very 
 thin, a little thinner than thick brown paper. I have measured 
 the whole uterus since the soaking process, not the thickness of 
 the walls. My measurement of the whole uterus was just over 
 3 inches long, and the width about 2 inches, and the thickness 
 over an inch. 
 
 The wisdom teeth sometimes come late in life, sometimes 
 over thirty years of age. I think it is impossible to fix the age 
 of the person whose remains these were within ten years. I 
 don't know that the decayed tooth is the one with least enamel 
 and most subject to decay. I had an impression the other way, 
 that the wisdom teeth were the first to decay, the last to come, 
 and the first to go; such has been the case with me. 
 
 Chloride of lime takes away some colours. I don't know 
 that it will take away colour from hair. I would not say it 
 would not, but I don't think it would. It would take it from 
 unstable colours. It undoubtedly retards decomposition. 
 
 I was present when Mr. Aubyn took a piece from the other 
 leg; I looked at it as he held it; I saw him cut it out. I 
 examined it as he cut it out and as he held it in his hand. I 
 am quite prepared to say that it had not a scar. I measured the 
 height very exactly several times; I did not make her quite 
 5 feet; I made her 4 feet 11 inches and one-eighth. I think the 
 fact of death having occurred so long back as nine months 
 would not lengthen the height ; it would shorten it ; but I don't 
 think to any great extent; it might to the extent of an inch. I 
 was of the same opinion at the Police Court. I made four ex- 
 aminations altogether. The cut in the throat was done with great 
 force. I am most undoubtedly of opinion that it was done by 
 
 126
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 some other hand than that of the individual whose remains I T. 
 saw. I cannot pledge myself to -what period of time after death 
 that injury was inflicted. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I eay that the deceased could 
 not have fired the two bullets into the brain, and after that cut 
 the throat, or vice versa, she could not have cut her own throat, 
 and then have fired the bullets into the brain. The force with 
 which the cut was done is one reason why I say she could not 
 have done it herself, and another reason is the direction ; it was 
 not a direction in which a suicidal wound is caused; it has 
 scarcely ever been found except in the case of a left-handed 
 person. A person would not cut up in this way (describing) ; 
 they would cut downwards with the right hand. The cut was 
 carried deeply in under the jaw; it must have been commenced 
 in the medial line. What I say is that, from the position of the 
 cut, it could not have been done by the person herself wnless 
 she was left-handed. I have a very strong opinion that it could 
 not have been inflicted recently because of the retraction of the 
 tissues and the great dryness of the tissues quite down to the 
 bone. 
 
 Cross-examination continued I could not say positively at 
 what date it was done. I say positively that to me it appeared 
 not a recent cut; it was quite different from the other cuts I 
 saw. As to a positive opinion, it is not for me to give it. When 
 the muscles and ligaments are relaxed shortly after death I 
 believe persons measure more after death than in life. I have 
 never actually found the measurement longer myself. I have 
 not had occasion to do so; but I think it would be the reverse 
 after the drying of the tissues. I think the inter- vertebral 
 ligaments would shrink and the ligaments retract. I am not 
 able to give a definite opinion as to that from experiments, but 
 I can tell as a fact that all these tissues do contract. I know 
 as a fact that immediately after death they relax, and they 
 retract when dryness takes place. I have not had occasion to 
 examine remains in such an advanced stage of decomposition 
 for the purpose of measuring height. I have dissected bodies 
 much longer decomposed, but I did not know them in life or 
 measure them in life. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I had some diffi- 
 culty in putting the parts together so as to measure accurately. 
 I was guided by the exact anatomical position of the parts. It 
 is not an easy thing to get them exactly placed in position. I did 
 it to the best of my ability. In the condition of the body that 
 I examined the ligaments were contracted, and the inter- vertebral 
 
 127
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 T. Bond cartilages must have contracted from the extreme dryness; in 
 fact, I cut out the vertebrae, so I know as a fact that they were 
 contracted and dried ; I think it might make the difference of an 
 inch. The wisdom teeth usually appear from twenty to twenty- 
 five, and even earlier sometimes. 
 
 As to the cut in the throat, I cannot say whether it was 
 inflicted during life, or immediately after death. There was 
 nothing to lead me to tell which. There was nothing to lead 
 me to say that it was not inflicted during life. There was blood 
 around the cut, but I can't say that the blood came from the 
 cut. It might have come from the gunshot wounds. If I had 
 seen blood in the cut I should have said that it must have been 
 done during life, or otherwise before the circulation had ceased. 
 The cut extended just to the left ear, and the ear around that 
 particular part was exceedingly much clotted with blood directly 
 at the end of the cut, but I cannot tell whether it came from the 
 cut or the other wounds. The blood from the wounded head might 
 have flowed over. If I could have traced the blood to the cut 
 and nothing else, then I should have been certain that it must 
 have been inflicted during life, or before the circulation had 
 ceased. I saw no blood in the cut; the cut commenced on 
 the right-hand side, in the cartilage, and it went deeper and 
 deeper until it got very deep, quite under the angle of the lower 
 jaw. In my opinion it was a cut upwards, because 
 the only way to make it downwards would be quite to 
 make a slanting cut down under the jaw and then draw it down, 
 which would be a very unlikely thing to do. In my 
 opinion it went from the centre of the throat up, 
 under the left angle of the lower jaw, going deeper as it went 
 on towards the left ear; the head was severed from the trunk 
 lower down, underneath the cut; the cut had nothing to do 
 with the severance from the trunk. There was greater extravasa- 
 tion below the scalp where the first bullet had entered and 
 below the dura-mater than the other. I think the pistol shot 
 wound would produce death instantly. If it did, that would 
 account for the less quantity of extravasation from the other 
 wound. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The heart would probably stop 
 within a minute when death was caused by the shot. I have said 
 that it is difficult by the inspection of the uterus after death to 
 form an opinion whether a woman has borne a child or not; 
 but I should expect after child-bearing to find the walls of the 
 uterus thickened. That would give me some material upon 
 which to form a judgment. Thickened walls are compatible 
 128
 
 Evidence for Prosecution. 
 
 with child-bearing, but they are also compatible with inflamma- T. 
 tion of the uterus or other diseases of the uterus, therefore it 
 would not be a safe inference. I should expect to find general 
 enlargement and thickening of the walls of the uterus. I think 
 no reliable judgment is to be formed as to whether a woman has 
 had more than one child. I think that is impossible, because 
 I do not believe it makes the slightest difference to the uterus 
 whether she has borne one child or two or three. Since the 
 parts have been soaked they have become much thicker than they 
 were; but I do not say much thicker than in a virgin 
 uterus. The walls of the uterus of a woman who has borne 
 children are not much thicker than a virgin uterus; but they 
 are thicker. In my judgment it was impossible to form a con- 
 fident opinion as to whether this woman had had one child or 
 more. 
 
 JAMBS SQUIRES, examined I am a gunmaker at Newcastle J. Squires 
 Road, Whitechapel. The three bullets which were shown to me 
 by Inspector Fox are either the central fire, No. 320, or the 
 rim fire, 297. They would fit either of the revolvers produced, 
 and not a pin fire revolver. I have here a rim fire revolver and 
 a central fire; the 297 would fit one and the 320 the other. 
 All the bullets fit both pistols, they are all one-sized bullets. 
 I cannot tell which they belong to; they might be fired from 
 either ; all the three bullets fit the same revolver. You could not 
 fire these bullets from either revolver, because one is a central 
 fire and the other a rim fire. I cannot tell to which they belong. 
 They are conical-shaped bullets. This little bullet of Mr. 
 Pinnell's would not fit this pistol. Mr. Sawyer's bullet is the 
 same size; it is called a pin fire; it does not compare with the 
 three. 
 
 MATTHEW Fox, recalled, re-examined I have measured Mrs. Matthew Fox 
 Allen. She is 5 feet inch without her boots. 
 
 GEORGE WILLIAM ROGERS, recalled, re-examined I cannot G.W. Rogers 
 swear that this is Thomas Wainwright's signature in the 
 signature-book, but it is something after the character of it. 
 I cannot say to the best of my belief that it is his; the character 
 is different. I have looked from page 33 to the other corner, 
 and there are two handwritings. This " II . Wainwright & Co." 
 is in Henry Wainwright's writing as the referee. 
 
 Court adjourned till to-morrow. 
 K 129
 
 Sixth Day Saturday, 27th November, 1875. 
 
 w. L. Moot WILLIAM Louis MOET, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
 I was formerly a clerk in the City and County Bank, at 33 
 Abchurch Lane. That bank is now in liquidation. Thomas 
 Wainwright kept an account there. I have his signature in our 
 signature-book. In it all the customers who open an account 
 sign their names. I saw that signature written by some one 
 who said his name was Thomas Wainwright. I cannot identify 
 the prisoner as the man who wrote it. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you remember the person 
 of the individual who wrote it 1 No. 
 
 Mr. MOODY objected to the evidence as the writer of the 
 signature was not identified. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL At present I am only proving a 
 fact. I can only go by steps. I am going to ask how much was 
 written by the man who represented himself as Thomas Wain- 
 wright; but perhaps I can shorten the matter. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The fact of a person signing a 
 name is nothing unless he is identified. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am aware of that. Let Rogers 
 stand up. (To Rogers) Do you know that writing? I could 
 not swear it is Thomas Wainwright's writing. 
 
 Examination continued There are two handwritings in the 
 entry. The signature of the referee, " H. Wainwright," is 
 Henry Wainwright's writing. 
 
 T. Bond THOMAS BOND, recalled, re-examined Since yesterday I have 
 measured the neck of the uterus and find it to be an inch in 
 thickness. I measured the fundus and found it to be one-eighth 
 of an inch in thickness; that is Mr. Larkin's measurement. 
 The part he measured was very flaccid, and if not held up, but 
 pressed down by its own weight, it was much more; and may 
 I say as to the scar, if it is taken out and put in water it will 
 measure more; it is now contracted. [The witness was directed 
 to do so.] 
 
 Evidence for the Prosecution closed. 
 130
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 Opening Speech for Henry Wainwright 
 
 Mr. BESLBY addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Mr.Bwley 
 Henry Wainwright. He referred at the outset to the undue 
 excitement in the minds of the public occasioned by the. many 
 reports and articles that had already appeared in the papers in 
 respect to this case ; and contended that all this excitement was 
 prejudicial to the prisoner. It was also injurious to a prisoner, 
 that he was not informed before the trial of every detail of 
 such evidence as that of surgeons that would be brought against 
 him. These things, together with the production of evidence in 
 the witness-box, of which even the prosecution knew no word 
 beforehand, made the defence of a prisoner a task of stupendous 
 difficulty. It was often spoken of as a chain of evidence, and the 
 jury must be satisfied that the whole chain was in the perfect 
 state in which the Attorney-General had alleged it to be. No 
 evidence had been given to show that the prisoner took Harriet 
 Lane from home when she left her father's in 1871, nor had 
 it been proved when or how she became acquainted with Henry 
 Wainwright. They were first met with together at Temple 
 Bar in August, 1872, when an arrangement was made for Miss 
 Wilmore to take the child ; and in that matter the prisoner did 
 what he had done all through, viz., acknowledged his children 
 and paid for them far more than the law would have compelled 
 him to pay if he was disposed to act towards Harriet Lane in 
 an unworthy manner. After he took the lodgings for her at 
 Mrs. Wells' s, he had never spent a night under the same roof 
 with her, and to say that he had a motive for getting rid of 
 her was pure speculation. 
 
 Referring to the Frieake incident, the learned counsel said 
 the Frieake incident is divided into two parts; one will be 
 devoted to dealing with that part which refers to Frieake up 
 to the letter of 31st August, 1874, and the other to the period 
 subsequently, when Miss Wilmore and the other persons come 
 to make inquiries as to Harriet Lane. With reference to the 
 evidence who Edward Frieake was before September, 1874, 
 you were to have had the facts laid before you by the Attorney- 
 General supplemented, because that which was given before the 
 magistrates was untrustworthy. A servant of Mrs. Foster was 
 to have been referred to as proving having fetched some cham- 
 pagne glasses; but in any case it was to have been clearly 
 established that Thomas Wainwright was Edward Frieake. 
 Now, it is part of Henry Wainwright's case that there was a 
 person other than the gentleman who was called as a witness 
 
 131
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley here, who actually bore, or assumed to bear, the name of 
 Edward Frieake. On the part of the prosecution they are en- 
 deavouring to suggest that, from October, 1873, there was a 
 deliberate premeditated plan and scheme by Henry Wainwright 
 to murder Harriet Lane. Now, I leave you to say whether you 
 can reconcile that with the conduct of Henry Wainwright. It 
 was put in evidence that there was a stern letter saying " do 
 not come here " ; but there is no evidence that the letter 
 which does not seem so very stern was anything more than 
 a request to Harriet Lane not to call at 84 or 215 Whitechapel 
 Road, as the case might be, and a suggestion that they should 
 meet elsewhere. That is the sole foundation that there was 
 any other feeling in Henry Wainwright's mind than feelings 
 of consideration, if not of affection, for the woman and children 
 on whose behalf he was paying large sums of money. 
 
 Let us see how they endeavoured to make out this astonishing 
 conspiracy between two persons, by which Thomas Wainwright 
 was to be represented under the name of Edward Frieake a 
 person well known, be it observed, as he must be, to many in 
 the East End of London, for he was continually fulfilling the 
 semi-public functions of an auctioneer. They tell us that this 
 conspiracy existed at the time of Harriet Lane's lodging with 
 Mrs. Wells. Now, Miss Wilmore appears to have been a con- 
 stant visitor there, but she does not tell us she ever saw there 
 a person called Frieake ; but Mrs. Wells says that Mr. King 
 at one time brought a friend there with him, whom he called 
 Edward. Now you are not to suppose that because a person 
 is called " Edward " he is called Edward Frieake. There is no 
 evidence that Henry Wainwright ever called " Edward " 
 Edward Frieake; and the identity, if it can be said to arise, 
 arises in the most unsatisfactory way from the evidence of Mrs. 
 Wells, who had nothing to recall her attention to the fact of 
 the visit of this person for two years, and who, remember, was 
 unable to identify him in the ordinary way of selecting a person 
 from a number of others. I submit that in this case there is a 
 temptation for persons to rake up every little fact, and so to 
 colour and exaggerate them unconsciously that they are really 
 giving false evidence, though they believe themselves to be 
 speaking the truth. It may occur to you that if Thomas Wain- 
 wright was not the " Edward " of the visit to Mrs. Wells, why 
 should not the prisoner Henry produce that friend? But you 
 must not assume that he is guilty because he is not able to 
 produce witnesses to combat every little point. If he has 
 forgotten that friend, he cannot call him. But whether true or 
 false, you must remember that it is a necessary link in the chain 
 
 132
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 that at this time there was a cool, premeditated design between Mr. Besley 
 the two brothers to murder that woman. Can you conceive any 
 motive for selecting the uncommon name of Frieake when Brown, 
 Jones, or Robinson would have answered the purpose equally well? 
 Why should they choose a name which would at once attract 
 attention, and arouse Harriet Lane to make inquiries? But did 
 she make inquiries? No such thing. Is there a trace of a 
 person named Edward Frieake? The fact is, Mrs. Wells has 
 had her mind excited, and has been casting about for trifles, 
 and, having got some trifle, has dressed it into an incident or a 
 plot to murder, conceived long before it was put into execution. 
 Mrs. Wells's evidence as to identity is such that the word 
 " frivolous " is too dignified to apply to it. She said, in 
 answer to the Lord Chief Justice, that she had not been able to 
 identify him when she was shown him, and her sole description 
 of the " Edward " who came to her house was that he had a 
 slight moustache, but that he looked so much younger that 
 she could not say whether he was Thomas Wainwright or not, 
 as he passed under her view on but two occasions, and then only 
 for a short period. That appears to me to be the most flimsy 
 of evidence as to the question of identity. Although this is 
 more essentially the case of Thomas Wainwright, I deal with it 
 as the advocate of Henry Wainwright for the purpose of destroy- 
 ing the suggestion that these two men were in combination 
 together long before September, 1874, to achieve a purpose 
 which was achieved at that time. 
 
 We now come to her lodging with Mrs. Foster, which is 
 from May, 1874, and I have to deal with the period of the four 
 or five months following. The next three witnesses are Mrs. 
 Jemima Foster, Miss Stanley, and Miss Wilmore, and they 
 refer to the Frieake incident at that part of the story. They 
 are the witnesses who spoke to these facts when before the 
 magistrates; but Humphries is a supplemental witness, who is 
 to establish the charge of joint action by the two prisoners. 
 Mrs. Foster speaks, I believe, of one or two visits. It is almost 
 impossible not to contrast her evidence with the evidence of 
 Humphries, who is contradicted by her. If they were both 
 speaking of the same identical champagne, they cannot both be 
 speaking the truth, for Mrs. Jemima Foster has distinctly 
 spoken to two occasions, on the first of which a pint of cham- 
 pagne was sent, and on the second a quart, and she also speaks 
 of the borrowing of the glasses. She undoubtedly placed these 
 two occasions at a period entirely distinct from that at which 
 she was attracted to her door by the disturbance outside. Then 
 she speaks of the identification of Thomas Wainwright as Edward 
 
 133
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Beiley Frieake ; a.nd you will remember that on the first occasion she 
 had only a very slight opportunity of seeing the person who 
 came there, and certainly the non-recognition of Thomas at 
 Leman Street police station is a signal and important fact upon 
 the question of identity. Mrs. Foster failed to recognise him 
 there, and I do not know that she was very strong in her 
 recognition here. Miss Wilmore, the most trustworthy witness, 
 almost negatives the suggestion that Thomas Wainwright was 
 Edward Frieake the second, or the false Edward Frieake and 
 it is for you to consider whether there was not really another 
 person who was entitled to use that name. Miss Wilmore said, 
 when asked to describe him, that he was a thin man, with a 
 light moustache that when he came he did not stay long, 
 and that it was in the evening time. She is asked whether she 
 thinks either of the prisoners was the person, and she says, " I 
 am not sure." When she is cross-examined she describes him 
 as a person of youthful appearance, not very short, but in the 
 most essential characteristic very different from Thomas Wain- 
 wright, viz., a person with a light moustache. She had the 
 vaguest possible recollection of the person ; and you must re- 
 member that the name was not given on the first occasion, but 
 only on the second, after Harriet Lane had said that Edward 
 Frieake was going to give her two rooms of furniture. That is 
 quite consistent with the name being an assumed name, but it is 
 also consistent with the person being entitled to use the name. 
 It has been practically admitted by the Attorney-General that 
 this was evidence upon which not much reliance could be placed, 
 unless substantiated by other evidence. With regard to Miss 
 Wilmore, she almost negatives the supposition that Thomas 
 Wainwright was the person, and almost establishes the fact that 
 there was another man going by the name of Edward Frieake. 
 She is a person who is deaf, and persons with that affliction 
 generally have their other senses sharpened to an unusual degree. 
 She therefore would have been more likely to use her eyes than 
 a person who could hear well, and was therefore a deal more 
 likely to make accurate observation. 
 
 At Mrs. Foster's, as at Mrs. Wells's, from the time Harriet 
 Lane was there, Henry Wainwright never entered the house. 
 There is a story told about his being seen in a cab, but when it 
 comes to be cross-examined it is entirely disproved. Mrs. 
 Foster speaks of a disturbance in the street, and with reference 
 to that there is no question but this, that if any date can be 
 established without the possibility of error, it is the date of 1st 
 September for that disturbance, because Mrs. Foster, who lets 
 lodgings, said that the next morning she gave Mrs King notice 
 134
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 to leave on that day week, and that day week was 9th Septem- Mr. Betley 
 
 her. If she is right, it was on the night of 1st September that 
 
 this disturbance took place, and the fact is made more clear, 
 
 because Miss Wilmore and Mrs. Foster concur in saying that 
 
 two days' grace was given, and that llth September was the 
 
 date on which she was to leave the lodging. Mr. Humphries 
 
 tells us a story which, when contrasted with the other evidence, 
 
 is improbable. I don't suppose, however, he wishes for a 
 
 moment to deceive any one, and, whilst making comments upon 
 
 the witnesses, I must ask you not to suppose that I want to put 
 
 you in the dilemma of having to say that any witnesses have 
 
 committed wilful misstatements. I refer to it only in contrast 
 
 with other witnesses who cannot possibly be deceived. Now, 
 
 here is a man who has four public-houses on his hand, and he 
 
 comes down here to lead a jury to believe that certain things 
 
 go on in one of his houses a year ago, which he remembers 
 
 accurately now. It was not even suggested that he could give 
 
 this evidence until November, the inquiry before the magistrate 
 
 having closed in October. What a lame story it is about the 
 
 champagne glasses. Mr. Humphries is taking stock somewhere 
 
 about that time, and he recollects the champagne glasses being 
 
 lent. Mrs. Foster may be mistaken, but if she be not mistaken, 
 
 they were obtained by a person who was not like Thomas Wain- 
 
 wright. And you will be asked to give credence to a story which 
 
 the Attorney-General himself has said he could not ask you 
 
 implicitly to believe, because it was so defective in reference to 
 
 identity. 
 
 Now gentlemen, in point of order, we come to the period 
 from 5th September down to the end of 1874. I have en- 
 deavoured, and I trust successfully, by argument and reason 
 to carry your minds with me, that at all events it is not satis- 
 factorily established, and that the evidence rather leans the 
 other way, showing a fair ground for supposing that another 
 person other than Thomas Wainwright was the person known 
 to Mrs. King under the name of Edward Frieake. The letter 
 spoken to by Mr. Frieake, although it is dated 31st August, 
 I ought not to omit. Upon the receipt of that letter I make 
 this observation, that addresses are often inaccurate, and that 
 letters addressed to one place are sometimes delivered at 
 another. No one will set up the theory that no letter ever 
 has been delivered at the wrong house; and in this case there is 
 nothing to show how the letter written by Mrs. King, which 
 fell into the hands of Mr. Frieake, was addressed, for, as far 
 as we know, the envelope does not exist, and there is no evidence 
 with reeard to it. 
 
 135
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The envelope was proved to be 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. BESLET Your lordship recollects that the letter is evi- 
 dence against Henry Wainwright, because it was called to his 
 attention; but the envelope never was called to his attention. 
 Strictly and legally I am therefore entitled to say that there 
 is no evidence as to how that letter was addressed. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I shall tell the jury to draw an 
 inference from the delivery of the letter to Mr. Frieake's place 
 of business, that it was addressed to the place where it was 
 delivered. 
 
 Mr. BESLET I am much obliged to your lordship for that 
 statement. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think it better when a counsel is 
 arguing, and when I feel that there is an adverse view, to 
 make him acquainted with it before his address is closed. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT It may be fairly argued that you may infer 
 that the letter was directed in full because it was delivered; 
 but I must ask you whether that would be a fair inference, 
 having regard to the fact that Mr. Frieake has never seen the 
 envelope, and^that the memory of the letter did not at once 
 come to him. He had an interview with Henry Wainwright, 
 and it never occurred to him at the time that he had received 
 any such letter. If it is a question of memory we do not know, 
 but it nevjer made any impression upon Edward Frieake. 
 Having regard to his position, and your ordinary knowledge 
 of the careless way in which letters are directed, I shall ask 
 you to reject the inference, and say that it was a letter addressed 
 to the young man with no beard or whiskers who passed by the 
 name of Frieake, and that it fell into the wrong hands. The 
 letter reads " I trust you will pardon my writing to you. I 
 ought to apologise for my rude behaviour last evening, after 
 the kindness I have received from you." The letter goes on 
 " I had been so worried and annoyed during the day, and I 
 am sorry I lost my temper." I think it is an improper inference 
 to come to that this letter refers to the scene in the street. 
 It refers to some other incident. That she had come to an 
 understanding with some person named Edward Frieake may be 
 reasonably inferred from her refusal to live with Miss Wilmore. 
 It is Mrs. King who makes this proposal to send the children 
 to Miss Wilmore. Supposing a person had assumed the name 
 of Frieake, and had given no address it would be the easiest 
 thing in the world for any one to suggest to her that Edward 
 Frieake was an auctioneer, and that he might be the same 
 
 136
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 person. It is quite impossible that you can believe that if it is Mr. Betley 
 
 Thomas Wainwright who is personating Edward Frieake he 
 
 would give the true address of Edward Frieake, 30 Coleman 
 
 Street. The Attorney-General, in his reply, will have to give 
 
 some explanation of this letter that either it was intended for 
 
 Thomas Wainwright or it was not. If it was intended for him, 
 
 it is not likely that he would give Edward Fri cake's address at 
 
 30 Coleman Street. This is approaching an important date, 
 
 namely, llth September, and the letter says " I have been 
 
 so worried and annoyed during the day, and I am sorry I lost 
 
 my temper. I did not go out again, as you wished me not to." 
 
 In reading that passage would you not yourselves come to the 
 
 conclusion that the words " rude behaviour to you last evening, 
 
 after the kindness I received from you," were written by a 
 
 woman who received at her house the person she is addressing? 
 
 It is quite clear, then, that it does not refer to the incident in 
 
 the street, because the evidence is conclusive that on the 
 
 occasion of the incident in the street no one entered the house 
 
 with Mrs. King. She is brought in by Miss Wilmore, who sees 
 
 no one in the street, but only knows what she is told by Mrs. 
 
 King, as to the truth of which there may be considerable doubt 
 
 in your minds. It is evident, then, that upon this night no 
 
 man entered Mrs. Foster's house certainly the young man with 
 
 the light moustache did not. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Which is the part of the letter 
 that shows the person she was writing to was not in the house 
 that night! 
 
 Mr. BESLBT I infer it from the words I have read, and 
 there is further evidence in these important words, which I 
 was omitting, namely, " I felt very sorry you left me so cross." 
 This is a woman who, so far as we know, was simply the recipient 
 of Henry Wainwright' s money for a period of more than a year. 
 And then she writes this letter to some person named Frieake, 
 apologising for her rude behaviour, and stating, " I have well 
 considered the subject you spoke of, and I think if Harry and 
 yourself come and see me to-morrow evening we could arrange 
 matters very satisfactorily. As the time is very short, write 
 by return "; and she adds, " If I don't hear from you, I shall 
 conclude I am not forgiven." The appointment was made by 
 this letter, so that, in fact, it is not necessary to suggest that 
 31st August was not the real date of it. The next day would 
 be 1st September, which is the day fixed upon by both Mrs. 
 Foster and Miss Wilmore for her being intoxicated in the street, 
 because notice to leave was given next day. Thus the letter 
 
 137
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Besley itself supplies internal evidence of a proposed meeting between 
 herself and the person named Frieake. Whether the other Mr. 
 Frieake, who is not a witness, ever met her, where the meeting 
 took place, what led to the scene in the street that particular 
 night, are matters upon which we have no evidence, and there 
 is no satisfactory evidence that Henry Wainwright was there 
 at all. Mrs. Foster says she put her hand on his shoulder and 
 said, " Mr. King, try and get her in," and she deposes that 
 this was the Mr. King she had formerly seen. Faces often 
 resemble each other, and identity is a matter of difficulty. 
 The witness's attention was evidently more directed to prevent- 
 ing a scandal outside her door than to deciphering countenances. 
 Then she was there only for a short period, and, having heard 
 Mrs. King say, " What do you mean by interfering with my 
 husband? " she would be naturally led to the conclusion, without 
 minute investigation, that it was the Mr. King who had taken 
 the lodgings some months before, and whom she had not since 
 seen until that moment. I think the contents of the letter 
 require some theory on the part of the prosecution. Any theory 
 inconsistent with there being another lover going under the 
 name of Frieake would be entirely out of the question. I do 
 not know how it can be argued before you upon that letter that 
 there must have been an interview in Mrs. Foster's house 
 between Mrs. King and some other person, who is neither of 
 the prisoners, either on 30th or 31st of August. It has not 
 been conclusively proved that either of the prisoners was in 
 the street on the night of this incident; on the contrary, a 
 review of the evidence rather establishes the view that there 
 may have been persons there who found her at some place and 
 .made her acquaintance. 
 
 Coming now to 10th September, Mr. Besley disputed the 
 evidence of Mr. Baylis that the chloride of lime was bought on 
 that day. It was not clear that the entry was made on the 
 day in question. Moreover, it was unlikely that a man desiring 
 to conceal what he did would go to a person who knew him, 
 in his own neighbourhood, to purchase the means of that con- 
 cealment. A police contract with the prisoner was signed on 
 27th September, 1874, and for its execution chloride of lime 
 was required. No witness had traced the chloride of lime to 
 No. 215 Whitechapel Road. There could be no identification 
 of the lime found in the grave with that delivered some time 
 or other at No. 84. The smells at No. 215 were perceived before 
 llth September. The hour alleged by the three witnesses as 
 that when they heard three shots fired, namely, between five 
 
 138
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 and seven o'clock on the evening of llth September, was utterly Mr. Besley 
 
 untrustworthy, as half -past six o'clock was the time when there 
 
 must have been a van at the door of No. 215, which Mr. Martin 
 
 had sent in order to remove goods to his salerooms. The 
 
 supposition that the men heard three shots fired was entirely 
 
 a result of questions being put to the workmen by a reporter 
 
 of the press after they had heard of three bullets having been 
 
 found in the remains. Their notion of the date was vitiated 
 
 by Mrs. Trew's evidence that the entry in her father's book 
 
 was 9th September. All the probability was that Mr. Pinnell 
 
 was on the 9th trying how fast he could fire off his pistol a 
 
 number of times in succession, and that day it was beyond 
 
 question that Mrs. King was at 3 Sidney Square. 
 
 The evidence of the interviews of the Lane family and the 
 friends of Henry Wainwright was untrustworthy, as such evi- 
 dence always was when it related to conversations of which no 
 memorandum was made at the time. So far as we know, all 
 the statements made by Henry Wainwright were truthful ; there 
 was no proof that they were false. It was not shown that the 
 prisoner knew anything of the Charing Cross letter until it was 
 put into his hand ; nor did the prosecution prove who despatched 
 the telegrams from Dover. It certainly was not a fair inference 
 that Henry sent them ; and yet a guilty person would be very 
 likely to go to a distant place to do such a thing. His (Mr. 
 Besley 's) theory was that the telegrams were genuine, sent by 
 the person who was in the cab with Mrs. King when Miss Wilmore 
 saw her drive past near the Bank of England. 
 
 As a motive for the charge in the indictment that the 
 prisoner had immoral relations with other women than Mrs. 
 King the prosecution had utterly failed. Whether it had been 
 intended to establish that point by Alice Day, he (Mr. Besley) 
 did not know ; but not a scintilla of evidence had pointed to any 
 such relation. We find, then, after the fire, business is being 
 carried on at No. 215 only, and that on the part of Henry 
 Wainwright the struggle would necessarily be a great one; but 
 still he pays to Miss Wilmore as much as could be demanded 
 of him, and even more, for the support of his children. You 
 find that he is paying 5 a month regularly down to June, and 
 in no way is his conduct that of a man who desires to shirk his 
 responsibility, though he might well have said, " I am no 
 longer in a condition to pay what I have done." When Miss 
 Wilmore suggests, " If you cannot pay 25s. a week, I will 
 take 20s.," he said, " No, I do not wish to alter the arrange- 
 ment ; I am quite content," and by his words and acts, in every 
 
 139
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley way, shows that he desired to provide most handsomely for 
 those who had claims upon him. 
 
 Having, as I hope, disposed of that link in the chain of 
 evidence which sought to establish the death of Mrs. King on 
 llth September, I now come to an incident of immense import- 
 ance, and that is Miss Wilmore's statement, in cross-examina- 
 tion, that about Christmas, 1874, when near the Bank of 
 England with the eldest child, she saw a person in a cab with a 
 gentleman, who, she believed, was Mrs. King. The cab was 
 stopped by the traffic, and she had an opportunity of observing 
 the peculiar tint of the lady's hair. She made no attempt to 
 reach the cab, as it was enabled then to move on, and, being 
 hampered with the child, she was unable to reach it. But so 
 strongly did she believe she had seen Mrs. King that she stated 
 she had seen her, and she has since shown her bona fide belief 
 that it was Mrs. King who was in the vehicle on that occasion. 
 There is no evidence whatever to set that aside. It is all very 
 well to say it is not proved where Mrs. King is now; but I 
 submit that she may be in Australia or New Zealand or some- 
 where ; she cannot know the question that is going on about her 
 now in London. Anyhow, there is the fact. She states her 
 belief of it, and that is repeated by Henry Waimvright. Why 
 should he disbelieve Miss Wilmore ? There are other statements 
 of his, that his foreman, or porters, or workmen had also seen 
 Mrs. King. It was stated that he had said Rogers had seen her, 
 and when Rogers is asked he says, " No, I did not." But 
 there is the other statement that his porters or workmen had 
 seen her, and I would submit to you that, when Titiens was in 
 the box, this question was not put to him, while Vostius was not 
 called at all for the purpose of showing that Henry Wainwright' e 
 statements in this respect are not founded on fact or are con- 
 trary to the real truth. 
 
 Coming now to the question of Rogers' evidence, if the fact 
 stood alone that he never before Thursday said a word about 
 that story of seeing Mrs. King at the shop at No. 84, when he 
 described the fainting scene and the snatching at the letter, I 
 should ask you to discard altogether his evidence. I contend 
 that the story is the fruit of his imagination prompting him to 
 say that which is false, regardless of the consequences ; or that 
 he knew these facts, and that, knowing their importance, he 
 concealed them. In either of these points of view, his evidence 
 is evidence upon which no jury ought, in such an issue, in any 
 way to rely. Having commented on the singular features of 
 this witness's story his marriage at fifteen, his employment, 
 and the bigamy which he admitted having committed, Mr. 
 140
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 Besley said Rogers was the only person who had been called Mr. Besley 
 who had suggested that any time previous to September, 1874, 
 there was the slightest disagreement between Henry Wainwright 
 and Mrs. King. He is the person who introduced the topic of 
 that letter; but do you think there is any truth in it? Then 
 the "Don't, don't" of the witness Jane Rogers I Why, I 
 thought it meant that there was a struggle and a blow. But 
 what does it mean? It was spoken while the wife was sitting 
 with her husband. Yet he does not hear it, and he does not 
 come downstairs till he is called down by Henry Wainwright I 
 And when he does come down Mrs. King is standing up. I 
 contend it is an account which is perfectly incredible. You 
 remember that Rogers and his wife were living upstairs. Is it 
 likely, therefore, that when the shop was shut Wainwright was 
 likely to bring Mrs. King there, and that on one occasion only? 
 While if she came unexpectedly, what would have been easier 
 than for him to return to the room and request them to tell her 
 to come another time? Pray, gentlemen, also recollect that we 
 have no explanation how she came there. She seems to have 
 dropped from the clouds. At any rate, we have no information 
 how she came there. Then we have this extraordinary story 
 that a letter is ready written and at hand directed to Mrs. Henry 
 Wainwright at her residence, and that her husband is despatch- 
 ing a note; that " Don't, don't," is heard by the husband ; that 
 he has handed to him a letter which says, " I am going to 
 commit suicide " ; that it is torn violently out of his hand, and 
 Mrs. King goes off into a faint, and that is the matter you are 
 asked to believe. Rogers reads his master's letter when he 
 gets outside, and thinks it such nonsense that he says nothing 
 about it, and throws it into the fire, and that fact entitles him 
 legally to tell us the contents of the document. That is a mar- 
 vellous incident so marvellous as to arouse the attention of the 
 Attorney-General, who had no notice of it, and in our ignorance 
 of the existence of any such paper my lord did not allow the 
 contents to be made known on the first day, as we had not had 
 notice. Really, gentlemen, when you come to think of it, do 
 you for a moment believe there ever was such a paper? If there 
 was no such paper, a thousand times stronger is the reason why 
 you should not believe Rogers. Not one word did he say in his 
 eiamination-in-chief of this. He did not tell us of his wife, 
 nor did he say that he was called downstairs. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He certainly did say that. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT I was pointing to the fact that the whole thing 
 was left out in the examination-in-chief. Mrs. Rogers stands 
 on a different footing, but she cannot be entirely free from the 
 
 141
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley observations I have made on Mr. Rogers. It seems to me to be 
 the innate nature of man to screen as far as possible the acts 
 of a woman to avoid giving her pain. It is the natural prompt- 
 ings of one's heart to save them from any reflection which may 
 cause them to be less esteemed by their friends, and I therefore 
 simply point out that my view with regard to Mrs. Rogers is, 
 that the question of " Don't, don't " was an afterthought did 
 not form an original part of the case, and was not spoken of or 
 remembered till the grand jury had returned a true bill. We 
 have no evidence of there having been quarrelling ; and I refer 
 to this and the entanglement with other women to show that 
 both these motives have failed, and yet you are asked to rush 
 blindly to a conclusion, because something revolting has occurred 
 in dealing with the body of a person who is dead. 
 
 With regard to the circumstances occurring between Christ- 
 mas, 1874, and September, 1875, there appears to have been 
 very nearly, if not entirely, a cessation of any expectation 
 of Harriet Lane's return. This is perfectly consistent with the 
 facts submitted to you as proving that she had arranged or 
 contemplated the withdrawal of herself from this country in 
 the company of a man whom she supposed to be rich, having 
 received from Henry Wainwright as much money as she could 
 previous to her departure. 
 
 We now come to 10th September, 1875. With reference to 
 the subsequent discovery made by the police that there was a 
 grave at 215 Whitechapel Road, it would be idle for me to deny 
 the fact; but that it was the grave of Harriet Lane is quite 
 another question, because that must be a matter of identity 
 to which I shall presently draw your attention. When was that 
 grave prepared? We know not. We know not if it be the body 
 of some other person than Harriet Lane; we know not when 
 that person died ; or how it came that the body so dead was put 
 into the grave. We do know that the remains found in the 
 possession of Henry Wainwright were at one time there; but 
 as to the mode of preparation I think the learned Attorney- 
 General went so far in his opening speech as to say that the 
 grave was dug either before or after Harriet Lane's death that 
 it might have been in preparation of her death, and it might 
 have been afterwards. There is no proof of these matters. They 
 are really speculations theories; and because a theory comes 
 with importance from one of the law officers of the Crown, you 
 are no more compelled to accept it than a theory that comes 
 from the last-called barrister of yesterday. There is nothing 
 to show when this grave was prepared, but there is sufficient
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 to show that it must have taken time in preparation. The Mr. Be i ley 
 sawing of four joists in three places is not an operation to be 
 disposed of in three minutes. It is a peculiar noise, a noise 
 that is as likely to attract attention as the noise of the explosion 
 of a pin -bullet of the size of the top of a child's little finger, a 
 bullet which makes very little noise indeed. There is no one 
 who comes forward to say that they ever heard in 1875 or 
 1874 the noise of the saw in the paint room of 215 Whitechapel 
 Road. That it was done is indisputable, but you will recollect 
 that for a considerable period, so far as Henry Wainwright is 
 concerned, he is not seen either in any way tampering with 
 these premises or going about them at extraordinary hours, 
 unless those of business. The only indication, which is an 
 indication not trustworthy, of there being a body there at all 
 is an odour arising some time in April, 1875, and that may be 
 easily confused with the smell from the heap of rubbish which 
 one witness said contained vegetable refuse, although many 
 others spoke of it as ashes. That odour is laid by a sprinkling 
 of what ? Why the very chloride of lime, a quantity of which 
 was found a short distance off in the grave. No indication of 
 that grave was found until a period of time had elapsed, when 
 Henry Wainwright had no more control over the premises as 
 to the mode of access. The key was produced for the extreme 
 purpose of justifying the observation I have before expressed, 
 namely, that the key is one of the most ordinary pattern that 
 there are hundreds of keys of a similar kind, one of which 
 would open this door at any time and permit access into the 
 premises against the desire of the person who had control of 
 them. 
 
 There is a circumstance introduced by the prosecution of so 
 trivial a nature that I must really apologise for calling your 
 attention to it. Mr. Johnson was called to prove the stippling 
 of four panes of glass in a window. It must have been that Mr. 
 Johnson was thought a desirable witness from his hearty English 
 bluff manners, one who would commend himself to a jury. 
 Otherwise there could be no pretence for occupying your time 
 by placing him in the witness-box ; and, as I contrast the absence 
 therefrom of the man who drove the van to No. 215 on the 
 evening of the llth of September, 1874, the triviality becomes 
 more apparent. Mr. Johnson said the windows were stippled, 
 as he supposed, to prevent a person living in the house from 
 seeing into the warehouse. Really what does it come to ? Henry 
 Wainwright was looking out for a person to occupy the house 
 part of the premises, No. 215, and he no doubt thought it 
 
 143
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley desirable if a stranger were introduced that the windows should 
 be stippled, and Mr. Johnson thought the idea was a good one. 
 This is only an attempt on the part of the prosecution to force 
 as distinctly as they can all the points which are necessary to 
 make out a case to their minds. 
 
 Up to June, 1875, when, pending a settlement with the fire 
 office, Henry Wainwright was made bankrupt, he never shrunk 
 from the liability he incurred to Miss Wilmore. Then his 
 money became scarce ; but it by no means follows that, prior to 
 this time, he was in want of funds. It is only by separating 
 the facts and taking a just view of these circumstances that you 
 can get rid of the effect of a general statement by the Attorney- 
 General, to the effect that this man was so persecuted by this 
 woman Harriet Lane, at a time when he wanted means, that 
 he would resort to any expedient in order to dispose of her. 
 That, I submit, would be a very unfair reading, not only in a 
 matter of life and death, but even were it a small case in a 
 County Court, where the question of Henry Wainwright' s 
 liability was in dispute. The arrangement made with his 
 creditors for the payment of 12s. in the pound was a mode of 
 doing business not at all discreditable to Henry Wainwright 
 when it is contrasted with the present mode of offering Is. in 
 the pound. His struggle to pay the last 3s. was carried on 
 until he was made bankrupt in June or July, 1875. 
 
 Speaking of the transaction of 10th or llth September, 1 
 have already mentioned how facts grow when a celebrated case 
 is in the mouths of every one, and the attention of every one 
 is called to the particular persons involved. Who shall say 
 that Stokes is right, and that Henry Wainwright had talked 
 of the disposal of an axe and shovel before they were bought? 
 Stokes seems to think it was on a Thursday evening or Friday 
 morning when he was applied to for the purpose of selling an 
 axe and shovel. We know as well as we know any fact and 
 really very few facts in this case are positively proved that 
 Mr. Pettigrew sold them on 10th September, 1875, to Thomas 
 Wainwright. That they ever reached the hand of Henry is 
 mere speculation, although I in no way cast any reflection upon 
 the prisoner Thomas. But I say there is not a scintilla of 
 evidence that Henry even touched the axe or spade before what 
 is called the mutilation took place. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Henry Wainwright wiped the axe 
 and put it in paper on the llth. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT said he was confining his remarks to the 10th, 
 and his argument was that nothing whatever in the case con- 
 
 144
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 nected Henry Wainwright with the mutilation of the body. Mr. Besley 
 That he bought the American cloth and cord of a similar kind 
 to that in which the remains were wrapped I at once concede. 
 But this is a long way from saying that he had anything to do 
 with the mutilation of the remains. That he knew the remains 
 were there on the next day is also, I think, indisputable. It is 
 not my duty by any false reasoning to say that Henry Wain- 
 wright did not become aware that there was in the grave a body, 
 that he did not become aware it had to be removed. But this 
 does not, of course, imply that he had the least idea that it was 
 Harriet Lane. If it were the remains of that woman that were 
 deposited there he would be perfectly conscious, from his know- 
 ledge of the inquiries proceeding as to Harriet Lane's dis- 
 appearance, that if they were not at once removed from premises 
 occupied by him, upon him would fall the burden of proving 
 why those remains were there. That supplies the whole key 
 to his conduct the next day. Thomas Wainwright made a con- 
 fession when taken into custody that he had bought the axe and 
 spade for his brother at Mr. Pettigrew's. It does not follow 
 that he did ; there is no confirmation of it. It is a statement 
 made for his own exculpation, and does not inculpate the other 
 man. There is no attempt to show that the knife found belonged 
 to either of the prisoners. That Wainwright became aware on 
 llth September that in the possession of this body he was deeply 
 compromised is beyond dispute, and that explains sufficiently 
 all that took place afterwards. Knowing that Harriet Lane was 
 missing, he would feel that he would be made responsible for 
 her, and be called on to explain where she died and under what 
 c i rcumstances . 
 
 I pray you once again to separate in this case what is painful 
 and revolting, and keep your minds on the facts. The prosecu- 
 tion have to prove mainly that Harriet Lane died by violence, 
 and that Henry Wainwright was the person who caused her 
 death. He goes with Stokes, and it seems to me that if he 
 had been conscious of crime, a person like the prisoner, with 
 powers of reasoning equal to any of us, the last thing he would 
 have done would have been to ask Alice Day to ride with him 
 in the cab. Alice Day is a person for whom we must all feel 
 the deepest commiseration, because, by no fault of her own, she 
 lias been placed in a false position, where the tongues of the 
 malevolent may affect her good name. Surely if the prisoner 
 had been conscious of having committed a crime he would not 
 thus have multiplied witnesses against himself by allowing her 
 to ride over to the Borough with him in that cab. Again, if 
 
 L 145
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 , Besley he had been conscious of crime, would he not have sent Stokes 
 for the cab instead of going himself? Why, the very discovery 
 arose from the carelessness of innocence. If he had been con- 
 scious of guilt, would he have left Stokes in possession of the 
 bundles which contained such damning evidence against him? 
 And as to the great smell, you may well believe, gentlemen, 
 that there has been great exaggeration from first to last. It is 
 just like the police. They had got a fact, and they made the 
 most of it. Do you think that Alice Day would have remained 
 in that cab if there had been such a stench as the police have 
 described, or anything more than she could attribute naturally 
 to the American leather? 
 
 I quite acquiesced in the remarks of his lordship about the 
 key when my learned friend (Mr. Moody) was cross-examining 
 respecting it. Henry Wainwright was seen to open the door, 
 to leave one parcel there, and go back for the other, and there- 
 fore the possession of the key was a matter of no moment what- 
 ever. All that the prisoner then did his pretending to bribe 
 the police into silence, I pass by. The fact of his being com- 
 promised fully accounts for his conduct, but you must not 
 assume from that that he is guilty of murder. It has been done 
 over and over again by men who have suddenly found themselves 
 placed in difficult circumstances. 
 
 I now come to a question quite distinct from the others, 
 namely, the identity of the body found as that of Harriet Lane. 
 It is identified by two classes of evidence, which I may divide 
 into material and corporeal. The Attorney-General pressed 
 twelve points of identity, viz. (1) Slight build; (2) 5 feet in 
 height; (3) small hands; (4) small feet; (5) hair of light colour; 
 (6) pad, with a number of hairpins ; (7) decayed tooth ; (8) age ; 
 (9) woman who had had children; (10) scar; (11) wedding ring 
 and guard; (12) two buttons. There you have twelve points 
 of resemblance, and there was at one time another point, that 
 of earrings. When those were supposed to have belonged to 
 Harriet Lane they were remarkable, and looked nice, though 
 not of gold; but when found to be Mrs. Izzard's they were 
 common and of no value at all. If Mrs. Izzard had not been 
 forthcoming you would have had a thirteenth point of identity. 
 I will goon dispose of two others also. There is not a word of 
 evidence of those buttons having passed through the fire. It 
 was opined that Henry Wainwright burnt the clothes, but that 
 is entirely unproved. Miss Wilmore is a milliner, and knows 
 all about buttons, and she point blank said she would not say 
 the two produced from the stay-box were the same buttons. 
 146
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 If the clothes were burnt, where are the other buttons, and Mr. Besley 
 can you attach any weight, therefore, to that point? I must, 
 however, express my regret, though I don't complain, that Mrs. 
 Lane, in whose custody that stay-box was for a year, was not 
 called to prove that no other buttons had, during that time, 
 been put into the box. 
 
 The LOED CHIEF JUSTICE The buttons were taken out of the 
 box the first time it was opened. 
 
 Mr. BESLKT I think the evidence does not go that length. 
 There is no proof that scores of buttons might not have been 
 used out of that box by the lady who had it in her custody all 
 that time, and who is not called. Then that decides the ques- 
 tion of buttons. As regards the wedding ring and keeper, they 
 are not identified ; and there is a significant fact that there was 
 no furrow on the finger indicating that the deceased had ever 
 worn a wedding ring. Now, we come to the corporeal resem- 
 blance. (1) and (2), " slight build and 5 feet in height." We 
 have 3,500,000 of people in this metropolis, and if all the 
 women of 5 feet high were mustered there would be an exceed- 
 ingly large array; and therefore there is nothing peculiar in 
 ' slight build and 5 feet in height." As regards 5 feet we 
 are theorising again. Mrs. Allen said that her sister Harriet 
 Lane was the shorter; but Mrs. Allen measured without shoes 
 5 feet inch. From all that appears Harriet Lane was 5 feet 
 inch; and if so, the body in this case, 4 feet 11| inches, could 
 not be that of Harriet Lane. Now, with regard to the hands 
 and feet, they are said to have been small. We have no measure- 
 ment of the hands, but we have a measurement of the feet, and 
 instead of being small, they are quite of the ordinary size. They 
 are said to be 8 ; but is that very small, as Harriet Lane's 
 were said to be 1 It was said the boots were 9 inches, therefore 
 the feet must have been something less, for ladies with fine feet 
 are not generally satisfied with a margin of only half an inch. 
 I say that there again the discrepancy between the facts and 
 the evidence destroys the value of the testimony, and if a matter 
 is left in doubt you at once get rid of the identity of Harriet 
 Lane, and, if so, of all motive for Henry Wainwright getting 
 her out of the way. Coming now to the hair and the pad, you 
 must put them together, and on them I will remark that, while 
 the hair of Harriet Lane is said to be " frizzy," it is not frizzy 
 in the hair which has been submitted to you; but of that you 
 will be able to judge, and I shall call medical men who examined 
 the body, who will tell you the hair was not frizzy or curly, 
 and that to call it so would be inaccurately to describe it. Then, 
 
 147
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley again, we hear that chloride of lime is a bleaching agent, and 
 therefore you must look to the fact of this hair having been 
 altered in colour by contact with this agent, and different from 
 what it was on the individual in life, and if you find no trace of 
 light auburn, as Harriet Lane's hair is described, I think the 
 question of the hair will have been disposed of. As regards 
 the pad, it is monstrous to suggest that there was any mark 
 upon it by Miss Wilmore, by which she would be able to identify 
 it. And as to the number of hairpins found in it, I am not aware 
 that there is a standard number, so that by going beyond it 
 there is an abnormal number. I trust, therefore, you will have 
 the good sense to disregard everything which has been said 
 about the hair or the pad. Then, again, with regard to the 
 decayed tooth. It is a little remarkable that these trust- 
 worthy witnesses have given two descriptions of Harriet Lane's 
 teeth. Miss Wilmore said she had teeth which projected on 
 each side, but not so as to disfigure her not the incisors, they 
 were not prominent. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What she said was, " She had no 
 disfigurement of the teeth, but they projected a little in the upper 
 jaw." 
 
 Mr. BESLET Very good, my lord. Let us then pass on to see 
 how far this is consistent with the doctor's evidence that there 
 were two teeth projecting, and those in front. Now, not only 
 were there five teeth missing when the body was discovered, but 
 after the discovery of two in the original parcel, and after sifting 
 the earth of the grave, there still remained two missing. I 
 contend, therefore, that is a proof that this was the body of a 
 woman who had lost two teeth in her lifetime, in spite of the 
 opinion of the medical men. As to the decayed tooth, there is 
 nothing extraordinary in a decayed tooth ; it is the commonest 
 thing possible, and can that possibly be a ground on which you 
 are to say that this body has been identified? Then, again, 
 the age of the body cannot be spoken to within ten years, 
 though that was made a great point in the speech of the 
 Attorney-General. Now, as to whether it was the body of a 
 woman who had borne children, I tell you at once that the 
 evidence will be conflicting. Mr. Larkin yesterday persisted in 
 the error that what he called the thinness of the walls of the 
 uterus was an indication of the woman having borne children ; 
 but when the more experienced Mr. Bond came into the box we 
 have the correction made. I shall supplement that by the evi- 
 dence of two similar medical men, who will tell you distinctly 
 that this is not the uterus of a woman who had borne children ; 
 
 148
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 and, if not, it cannot be the body of Harriet Lane. Next, with Mr. Besley 
 regard to the scar, Miss Wilmore says she has seen it from time 
 to time, while Mrs. Taylor had not seen it for five or six years ; 
 but that those scars are indelible must not be accepted for a 
 moment. Besides, such a scar may have arisen to a dozen 
 children from so common an incident as a poker dropping out 
 of a fire, and if there are two scars, one on each leg, in this 
 case, as I shall show, then what becomes of the value of the 
 scar in regard to identity? 
 
 Let me impress upon you that though you may have the 
 concurrence of two or three points of identity, yet if, on the 
 whole, you think the identity is unsatisfactory, you will not 
 find Henry Wainwright guilty of the murder of Harriet Lane. 
 
 But, then, there is another count in the indictment, which 
 says that you may find him guilty, and deprive him of life 
 for that will be the effect of your verdict of the ' ' murder of a 
 woman whose name is to the jury unknown." But would that 
 be a satisfactory thing to do 1 The explanation of the presence 
 of this count is clear. The prosecution could not trust to the 
 identification of the body of Harriet Lane. But if you charge 
 against him the murder of a woman unknown, no one knowa 
 the circumstances under which the murder took place ; and if you 
 exclude Harriet Lane, what evidence is there that it is not a 
 suicide? Mr. Bond would not swear that the cut in the throat 
 was inflicted during life. I do not put forward the monstrous 
 theory that the woman shot herself first and then cut her throat 
 afterwards. I admit that the cut throat must have been the 
 result of mutilation. But I do contend that it might be possible 
 for a person committing suicide to fire more than one shot. 
 There is nothing to show the order of the shots. A person might 
 miss the first shot, and then, when one had taken effect, there 
 would be time before the heart stops to fire again before falling 
 to the ground. I say, then, before you charge Henry Wain- 
 wright with the murder of a female unknown, you must have 
 proved that it is a murder. I say that you cannot prove that 
 it is a murder that it may be a suicide, and, if it is a suicide, 
 would you for that take away a man's life? It is in that case 
 that I have ventured to make these observations to you. 
 
 The LORD CHIBF JUSTICE said he should be glad to know the 
 learned counsel's theory, or he should be obliged to put to the 
 jury that no man of common sense could accept the idea that 
 a suicide had dug his own grave and buried himself. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT I am very much obliged to you, my lord, for 
 the suggestion. I have dealt with the defence of Henry Wain- 
 
 149
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley wright as against the charge of murdering Harriet Lane upon 
 two points first, that the case has not satisfactorily been made 
 out; and, secondly, that there is a want of identification. It is 
 for the prosecution to make out that it is Harriet Lane. But, 
 then, they charge the murder of a female unknown; and as 
 regards the second count I can well conceive circumstances in 
 which a person, young and unmarried, with a brain overstrained 
 by trouble, who might commit suicide with the idea of appalling 
 and punishing the person who had wronged her. Imagine such 
 a man confronted with the body ! It is easy to imagine that 
 it would be wiser to call in the police, but does it inevit- 
 ably follow that such a man would always do the wisest .thing? 
 Such a man might say that she is out of the world, it matters 
 very little where she lies, and he might be induced for his own 
 protection to place in an improper place the person who had 
 committed suicide. I have submitted that as applying to the 
 second count of the indictment; but if you, gentlemen of the 
 jury, in your judgment, think it applicable to Harriet Lane, 
 it is not my doing. I do not suggest the argument in that way. 
 I argue that it is not Harriet Lane, and therefore he has not 
 committed wilful murder. If it is the suicide of a person un- 
 known, the possession of the remains is not enough to deprive the 
 pr'soner of life by your verdict. 
 
 Evidence for Henry Wainwright. 
 
 Dr. Meadows Dr. ALFRED MEADOWS, examined by Mr. STRAIGHT I am a 
 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, a lecturer on mid- 
 wifery at St. Mary's Hospital, and physician to St. Mary's 
 Hospital. I have made obstetrics a considerable subject of 
 study. I was present in Court yesterday during the examina- 
 tion of Mr. Larkin and Mr. Bond. I examined the uterus at my 
 house on 3rd September, in order to form some opinion as to 
 whether it was that of a person who had borne a child. The 
 points are principally two to which I look for the purpose of 
 forming that opinion to determine the question, and they are 
 the size and as to the cavity of the walls, but more particularly 
 the shape of the uterine walls. The walls in the present case 
 were exceptionally thin, instead of being, as I should expect 
 to find them, somewhat thicker than an unimpregnated uterus. 
 At the time I saw the uterus it was in a liquid of some kind 
 I believe spirit and water. With regard to the second point, 
 I found the walls of the uterus projected in a convex manner into 
 the uterine cavity. It is not possible to express any distinct 
 150
 
 Henry Wainwright.
 
 Evidence for Defence. 
 
 opinion as to whether the uterus had been pregnant or not ; my Dr. Maadows 
 opinion, after considering the points mentioned, is that the 
 uterus had not been pregnant. It is not possible, with any 
 accuracy, to form an opinion as to the age, owing to the decom- 
 position and the long time the body is supposed to have been 
 buried. Chloride of lime is called a decolorer ; I have no experi- 
 ence as to its effect. I think it possibly might reduce black 
 hair to a light shade. It would undoubtedly have a bleaching 
 effect. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I did not 
 examine the body of this woman at all. I should probably 
 endeavour to find out the age by the teeth ; I am not -aware 
 that it could be found out in any other way. Wisdom teeth 
 make their appearance from twenty, perhaps a little before, to 
 twenty-five or twenty-six ; they vary a good deal. I am not sure 
 that I should come to the conclusion that a woman was not 
 over twenty-five if I saw her dead body, and from whose jaw 
 the wisdom tooth was just protruding, but probably I might. 
 I do not think it could be stated with certainty that the uterus 
 of a woman recently dead had been impregnated. The walls were 
 convex, which is certainly not due to the muscular degeneration. 
 There was muscular degeneration very considerably ; the whole 
 mass was very flaccid, but not at all difficult to measure; I 
 measured it. The uterine cavity was 2 inches. I only speak of 
 two measurements. The other was 1 inch and a third in depth. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. STRAIGHT I measured each wall 
 separately; the anterior wall was a little under a quarter of an 
 inch, and the posterior wall a little over a quarter of an inch. 
 I should expect to find the uterus of a woman as large twelve 
 months after death as just after. I have not had practical 
 experience of the inspection of a uterus twelve months after 
 death, but I have had experience of the examination of the uterus 
 in bodies a few weeks after death, and I am able to express 
 an opinion that the measurement would be the same after the 
 lapse of twelve months. I think "there is no shrinking of the 
 uterus after twelve months, but probably there may be of the 
 whole body. I think, as regards the uterus, it would be in- 
 finitesimal. A virgin uterus is subject to considerable variations, 
 even in what we call the normal state. If a body shrinks the 
 uterus might participate to the extent of the sixteenth of an 
 inch, which I think would be a fair proportion, because it has 
 been found that after the womb has been developed it very 
 seldom returns to its original shape again; it is exceptional if 
 it does. I was not speaking of it as an invariable rule, but it 
 
 151
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Dr. Meadows is regarded as an indication of a nulliparous uterus. I do not 
 know in what way the uterus had been treated when it was 
 taken from the body. 
 
 F. 6. Aubyn FREDERICK GEORGE AUBYN, examined I am a member of the 
 Royal College of Surgeons, and practise at 519 Commercial 
 Road. I have been eighteen years in the profession. I was 
 desired to inspect the remains on 24th September by the 
 solicitor for the prisoner. I attended at the mortuary at St. 
 Saviour's Church on the following day. I made an inspection 
 on three or four different times, in company with Mr. Bond. 
 The body was in a very advanced state of decomposition. From 
 examination I thought the age of the person would be from 
 twenty-five to thirty years I should say not more than 
 thirty. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE From what can you judge? 
 Because the sutures in the interior part of the skull were not 
 invisible, and we expect to lose them after thirty. 
 
 Examination continued I examined the legs. I agree that 
 there was a scar on the right leg. I examined the left leg also, 
 and discovered a scar upon it. I cut that scar out. 
 
 Can you produce it? I can. 
 
 [The witness produced a small piece of the decaying flesh or 
 skin, about an inch and a half square, wrapped in paper, which 
 he handed to the Lord Chief Justice.] 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE In what you have handed up 
 to me there appear to be two colours. One portion is darker 
 than the other? Yes, the darker is the scar. 
 
 What do you say it is the scar of? I can only say it is a 
 scar, but how caused I cannot say. 
 
 Are you sure it is not the result of the decomposition ? I 
 would not swear positively, but my opinion is that it is a scar. 
 
 Examination continued There was one decayed tooth, and 
 several others were missing. I would give no opinion upon 
 dental surgery, and therefore I cannot say whether one tooth 
 decays more rapidly than the other. 
 
 I examined the uterus with care for the purpose of forming 
 an opinion as to whether the woman had been pregnant or not. 
 The signs to which I looked were the length and the size of the 
 cavity, the general appearance of the womb, and the thickness 
 of the walls. I also observed the shape with Dr. Meadows. I 
 lo not give a decided opinion as to her having been pregnant, 
 but my opinion is that she was not pregnant, that the womb 
 had not been gravid, that she had not borne a child. I
 
 Evidence for Defence. 
 
 examined the hair, and did not detect any curl in it. I produce F. 0. Aubyn 
 
 some of the hair which was taken from the back of the head by 
 
 me. 
 
 [The hair was compared with the other hair cut from the 
 head of the dead woman. It was dark in colour, but this the 
 witness attributed to its not having been washed, and that 
 there was chloride of lime on that portion which he had taken 
 off.] 
 
 I measured the woman's body with great care, in presence 
 of Mr. Bond. It measured 4 feet 11| inches. The feet were 
 not unusually small in comparison with the size of the body. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I formed my 
 opinion as to the age of the woman from the sutures and the 
 teeth. When I saw the wisdom tooth just appearing Mr. Bond 
 told me he had cut it, and therefore I could not very well say 
 decidedly what her age was from this source of information. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Allowing for what Mr. Bond 
 had done, I could not judge the age, owing to the decomposed 
 state of the body. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Suppose the tooth had just 
 been making its appearance? Then the age might have been 
 twenty-five or twenty-six. It appears sometimes earlier, some- 
 times later. 
 
 Between what ages do the wisdom teeth usually make their 
 appearance? From twenty years to twenty-five or twenty-six 
 years. ." | 
 
 And your principal reason for fixing this woman's age is 
 what? The fact that the anterior sutures had not disappeared. 
 
 By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You say her age was between 
 twenty-five and thirty years. What makes you begin at twenty- 
 five? Because at that age we lose the posterior suture. 
 
 Cross-examination continued Is it not a fact that the 
 posterior sutures remain until middle age? No; I believe they 
 go at the age of thirty. 
 
 The posterior suture remains for a long time, and this 
 anterior goes at an early period? (After a pause) Just so. 
 
 Which were left here? Can you not tell from recollection I 
 Had the anterior sutures disappeared? No, they had not. 
 
 Why, then, do you come to the conclusion that she was 
 twenty-five years of age? (The witness did not reply). 
 
 Had the posterior sutures gone? No; I judged the age by 
 the sutures as they remained. 
 
 You say that the wisdom teeth make their appearance 
 between twenty and twenty-five. Why, then, do you think the 
 
 153
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 F. G. Aubyn woman was twenty-five years 1 Because she had cut the other 
 wisdom teeth. I did not hear that she had cut three, but I 
 came to that conclusion, because she had cut one. 
 
 Have you any other reasons to give me that the woman was 
 this age? No. I only found the scar on the right leg on the 
 last examination. I conducted that examination with Mr. 
 Larkin and Mr. Bond. We scraped the legs on the first examina- 
 tion, but did not find a scar on either, but we did ultimately 
 find one a little below the knee on the Tuesday. I have no 
 doubt about it being a scar, and I think it might have been 
 produced by a burn. We did not discover it on the first or 
 second examination not till a fortnight afterwards, the day 
 before the remains were buried. They had then been removed 
 to a dark vault under the church, and we went down with a 
 lighted candle. I did not notice whether we had one- or two 
 candles. I did not notice dark patches here and there, but there 
 was one patch on the leg which struck me, though not till the 
 day before the body was buried. Mr. Bond looked on the left 
 leg, and I looked on the right. I did not look at the left leg 
 till the next examination, and then we had two examinations 
 before we found either of the scars. We cut out the piece of 
 flesh containing this scar. I will not swear what the scar was 
 produced by. If the woman during life had received a blow on 
 her leg she might have had a scar. A blow inflicted on the leg 
 would produce such an appearance if it suppurated. I will not 
 swear that this is not an appearance produced by decomposition. 
 I examined the uterus with Dr. Meadows. 
 
 E.Martin EDWARD MARTIN, examined by Mr. DOUGLAS STRAIGHT I am 
 a corn merchant, and in September, 1874, I carried on business 
 in the New Road, Whitechapel. I had two vans, a large and a 
 small one, and I frequently had them repaired at Mr. Wiseman's. 
 I have my books here, which are kept by myself and my clerk. 
 I know nothing from memory, but I have a bill and receipt here 
 for 3 10s. on account, for repairs to my vans on 4th September. 
 The two transactions were somewhat mixed up together, for 
 the small van and the large one, and there is a balance left. 
 This is his name at the bottom ; it is " Repairs to van, 5 10s. ," 
 and you will see that it is agreed as 5 10s. in the corner. This 
 is an August bill, and on 4th September I paid 3 10s. ; that was 
 for the little van. By my cash book I paid, on 4th September, 
 3 10s. on account, and on the 9th 3 15s., which was the 
 balance on the two vans. This is the entry corresponding with 
 the receipt. You will afterwards find on the credit side 1 paid 
 154
 
 Evidence for Defence. 
 
 for some more work done. On the first receipt I have produced E. Martin 
 of 4th September, 3 10s. was paid on account. The small van 
 being completed, Mr. Wiseman would bring the bill round. The 
 3 10s. paid by me to Mr. Wiseman on account on 4th September 
 was on the small van. The repairs were 5 10s. The 3 15s. 
 was on the settled bill for the two. This was in part payment 
 of 7 5s. for the small one and on the large one. The small 
 one was 3 15s. and the large one 3 10s., but I have no bill for 
 the large one. We always pay cash when it is finished, immedi- 
 ately the job is done. Wiseman is told that if he does not take 
 the money then he will not get it. Those small accounts are 
 always paid cash. I paid him 3 10s., but perhaps I had not 
 seen the van then to see that he had done me justice. We 
 call payment on Saturday, cash. This is my day-book, by 
 which I find that on 10th September the big van was actually 
 in use. Here is an entry of 116 bags of rice shoots fetched 
 from the mill at Wapping at one load; the big van would be 
 required for that, and on the same day the small van had to 
 fetch one load of 58 bags, and another of 22 bags. On llth 
 September I find in the sold day-book an entry of three tons of 
 rice from my premises to Ems' wharf, which the one-horse van 
 could not have carried at one load; that is, I should say, 2 miles 
 from my place, and it would occupy half a day I should say for 
 the van to go there and back. I should like to look at Mr. 
 Wiseman's workmen's book; it is a very singular thing, if you 
 put the two payments together for the small one and the large 
 one, whether they will come to the amount which he has charged. 
 You see I am not speaking from memory, but from my own 
 books. Mr. Pollard, from the Treasury, came and examined my 
 books. 
 
 Henry Wainwright entered my service in May or June, 1875, 
 and was in my employment as manager when he was taken in 
 custody. He was very steady and well conducted. He was very 
 regular every morning at eight o'clock, and he commonly went 
 away about 8 p.m. I recollect his being taken in custody on 
 llth September, 1875. He was at work on my premises in the 
 usual way on 10th and llth September. On Fridays he had 
 to make the accounts out for wages, and on Saturdays he had 
 to pay them. I left it entirely to him ; I had my own business to 
 attend to. I have known his father thirty years, and himself 
 about two years. I met him at a party at Tredegar Square. 
 During all the time I have known him he has borne the character 
 of a kind-hearted, humane man. 
 
 By Mr. MOODY I do not think I have seen Thomas above 
 
 155
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 E. Martin twice in my life. I have no recollection whether I saw him 
 on Friday, 10th September. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I know that the 
 father was in a good position, but I do not know that he left 
 property. I live at Carlton Villa, Upton. I take the 7.50 or 
 8.50 train at night. I have only two places of business, a rice 
 and a corn establishment; they are opposite one another. I 
 have the means of living even without business, and I only 
 carried on the brushmaking establishment for Mr. Wainwright ; 
 it was more for him than for myself. I was not one of his 
 creditors. I never had transactions with him before meeting 
 him at this party. He was very much embarrassed, so that I 
 did my best to assist him. I paid him 3 a week wages. He 
 managed the brush business and the shipping house, and he 
 gave orders for 100 to 150 at a time. He carried on the 
 business as my manager at the upper part of 78 New Road, and 
 109 opposite. It was a profitable business to me. I received 
 the profits and paid him 3 a week. He was with me from 
 May or June to Saturday, llth September. My view was to 
 carry on the business until I got back my money, and then he 
 would have had the business. I had not lent him money, but 
 the profits of the business would have paid me what I had laid 
 out in the business, about 300. Afterwards I would have 
 handed it over, and Dr. Naggleton would have let him have 
 the house again. My real business is the corn and rice busi- 
 ness. The corn business is on the ground floor; there is a 
 warehouse at the back, and the brush business has a side 
 entrance to the two top floors, quite distinct. I closed my 
 business premises at 8.30. I left the brushmaking to Wain- 
 wright, who generally left about eight o'clock, if I was not 
 going by that train, but if I went at 7.50 I went before him. 
 His train went at 8.10. 
 
 1 showed Mr. Pollard my books, and told him that the 
 vans were paid for before. I have not said that my books 
 would throw no light on the matter ; I said that I would find 
 the bills, and let Inspector Fox have them next morning. I 
 offered every assistance to the police, and Inspector Fox will 
 tell you so. This first bill, dated 29th August, 1874, is, I 
 should suppose, for repairs done to the small van. Not a 
 farthing was due from me to Wiseman on 29th September, 
 1874. I should have paid it if there had been. He would 
 not have let it rest an hour, and I always pay a bill at once, 
 and never have credit of anybody. This bill is 3 10s., and 
 not 3 15s., because Mr. Wiseman agreed to take off 5s. We 
 enter the cash on the day we pay the money, and always make 
 
 156
 
 Evidence for Defence. 
 
 the entries at the time. On 4th September I paid Wiseman B. Martin 
 3 10s., leaving 2 10s. unpaid. Probably the van had not 
 been sent home then. If he had come for 3 10s., I should 
 have given it to him. I think I have paid part before the 
 work was delivered. I think you will find that the two 
 amounts in the cash-book were sufficient to pay both these bills. 
 The next payment was on the 9th. My clerk looked nearly 
 all night for the bill for the large van and could not find it, 
 and I have tried to find it myself. I do not know whether I 
 had a bill. This (produced) is the bill for the work done in 
 June, which was delivered on the same date as this one of 
 29th August. I did not produce these two bills before, because 
 they were both shut in the books. All these things were paid 
 for at the time; we never let a thing like this 8s. 6d. stand; 
 it would not be entered. I do not say that we never enter 
 such amounts, but in this cash-book it is very rare. 5 10s. 
 was the whole amount due from me on 4th September, and this 
 3 10s. on account was the whole amount I owed him at that 
 time. That included everything up to that time, and the 
 1 5s. for repairs to the big van and the work done to the 
 little van. We have thousands of papers in the course of a 
 day; they are kept on a large file; we have searched three or 
 four large files on several occasions to find the bill I paid Mr. 
 Wiseman. We probably did have a bill for repairs of the large 
 van. I did not usually hire vans when my own vans were being 
 repaired, but I do now, as we are busy. If my vans were 
 being repaired, I should make shift with a one-horse van till 
 mine was repaired; he would not keep it more than a day or 
 two. Mr. Wiseman has been told by me always to take bis 
 money as soon as he has done his work. I don't suppose I 
 should pay him for it until I had seen what he had done to it. 
 I probably paid him 3 10s. because I saw what he had done 
 to it. I only speak from my books ; I have no memory of the 
 transaction. The small van did go several times; it did two 
 loads on 10th September, and the big one one load. The 
 small one would have to go, I suppose, 3 miles. It was gener- 
 ally used for all purposes, taking out corn and all small loads, 
 but it would not carry 116 bags of rice at the same time. I 
 had the little van oiled in September; it was generally paid 
 for when done ; it was only a shilling. 
 
 By Mr. BBSLBT The 300 was money used for carrying 
 on the brushmaking business ; it was not money that went into 
 Henry Wainwright's pocket. It was capital. 
 
 The Rev. JOHN THOMAS, examined by Mr. DOUGLAS STRAIGHT John Thomas 
 
 157
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 John Thomas I am an Independent minister. I have known the prisoner, 
 Henry Wainwright, about eighteen years, and during all that 
 time he has borne the character of a humane and kind-hearted 
 
 W.T. Good WILLIAM THOMAS GOOD, examined I reside at 213 White- 
 chapel Road, and am a tailor. I have known prisoner about 
 sixteen years, and during all that time he has borne the 
 character of a humane and kind-hearted man. 
 
 and'others ^ r - DONALD MONROE, a member of the Metropolitan Board 
 of Works; Mr. JOSEPH MYERS COLE, Mr. EDWARD LACY, chemist; 
 Mr. SAMUEL. LUDBROOK, brushmaker ; Mr. WILLIAM VICTOR 
 BARDON, manager of chemical works in Whitechapel, gave 
 similar evidence. 
 
 Evidence for the prisoner Henry Wainwright closed. 
 Adjourned till Monday. 
 
 158
 
 Seventh Day Monday, 29th November, 1875. 
 Closing Speech for Henry Wainwright. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT said Gentlemen of the jury, of course you will *' Beiley 
 not anticipate that I am about to address you on the very 
 many topics to which I drew your attention on Saturday. It 
 would be no compliment to you to suppose that the effect of the 
 arguments and facts put before you was so ephemeral that you 
 could not retain it for forty-eight hours. When the Legis- 
 lature gave the privilege of summing up to a prisoner's counsel, 
 I have always understood its true object was that, when other 
 evidence was put before a jury on behalf of a prisoner, it was 
 advisable that his counsel should make some remarks on the 
 new witnesses called. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If anything occurs to you, by no 
 means restrict yourself to that. I have always held the con- 
 trary opinion. I think the Legislature intended that, when 
 the whole case was before the Court, the counsel for the defence 
 should be entitled to treat all its facts as one, and discuss them 
 from the beginning to the end. I quite agree with you that 
 it would be unnecessary to go over the same ground again, 
 considering the great attention the jury are paying to this 
 case; but if anything should occur to you, you need not feel 
 yourself tied down by any restraint on that point. 
 
 Mr. BESLBT I am obliged to your lordship, but I feel that 
 comparisons might be made as to the way in which the case 
 was treated on Saturday, and I don't therefore intend to go over 
 the same ground again, except so far as it may be affected by 
 the new evidence. I am unconscious of having omitted to deal 
 with any matters before the Court previous to the calling of my 
 witnesses, and I therefore briefly recall to your minds the 
 grounds on which Henry Wainwright is defended. In the first 
 place, in a case of circumstantial evidence it is necessary that 
 every part of that evidence should not only be relevant and 
 consistent in all its parts, but that if one link only is snapped 
 asunder by argument or cross-examination, it is your duty in 
 a case like this to give a favourable verdict to the accused 
 person. One very essential part of the case is the date on which 
 
 159
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley the person dead is said to have been deprived of life. There are 
 cases in which dates are of no value whatever, but in a charge 
 of wilful murder the time of the alleged deed is the very essence 
 of the charge, and if on that particular link in the chain you 
 are led irresistibly to the conclusion that the prosecution has 
 not proved their case, then you must give the prisoner the 
 benefit of the doubt, as it is called, and you will say by your 
 verdict of not guilty that the prosecution has failed to bring 
 home the charge. If llth September is not the true date of 
 death of the person so killed, if it be any other time weeks 
 later or months later the whole theory of the prosecution ia 
 shattered, and it is of no value, because it must be consistent 
 from the beginning to the end. Miss Wilmore and Mrs. Foster 
 swear that they last saw Harriet Lane on that day that is, 
 assuming that these remains are those of Harriet Lane, which I 
 by no means concede. The prosecution, however, fix the day 
 as that on which Harriet Lane withdrew from her lodgings at 
 Mrs. Foster's, viz., llth September, 1874, and they also fix 
 on a particular period of that day, viz., between five and seven 
 in the evening and also on the back premises of 215 White - 
 chapel Road as the place. 
 
 With reference to these vital points, if the day of hearing 
 the pistol shots is entirely disproved, how can you find your 
 way to bringing in as your verdict that Henry Wainwright 
 murdered Harriet Lane on llth September, 1874? Whitechapel 
 is a densely crowded neighbourhood, inhabited by numerous 
 families at home at all hours of the day ; and if you know any- 
 thing of this class of the population of the East End, you are 
 aware that on Saturday night they would be in the streets 
 between five and seven, providing for the comforts of their 
 families on the day of rest. You must remember, too, how 
 many families and persons live within a few yards of the very 
 spot where it is said a pistol was fired three times. I have 
 already spoken of the evidence of the two Kays and the younger 
 Wiseman. If you could have had a lingering idea in your minds 
 that those three witnesses had told a truthful story, that idea 
 must have been entirely removed if you paid attention to the 
 evidence of Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin had been waited upon by 
 the Solicitor of the Treasury. They examined his books, they 
 examined him and questioned him, who certainly has in no way 
 behaved himself in such a manner that his evidence should be 
 mistrusted in any way, and yet he is not called by the Crown. 
 What is the inference? Why, that you may dismiss from your 
 minds the theory that between five and seven that evening three 
 160
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 shots were fired at all. It is swept away by Mr. Martin's testi- Mr. Beslcy 
 mony. We heard of the " big job," but can you doubt for a 
 moment that that " big job " was finished before 9th September? 
 According to the evidence, the work is not entered until after 
 it is finished ; and Mrs. Trew says the entry in the book is 9th 
 September, and that is confirmed by reference to Mr. Martin's 
 cash book. Work was being done on the small van, and a pay- 
 ment was made on 4th September, 1874. That was a Saturday, 
 and that is a material point for you to remember; and Mr. 
 Martin paid the balance, together with what was due for oiling 
 the big van, on the following Thursday. 
 
 The FOREMAN OP THE JURY I beg pardon, my lord, but is 
 not the learned counsel quite wrong in his dates? In 1874, 
 the llth was a Friday. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is so. It is, however, a 
 natural mistake to make, as Saturday, the llth, 1875, is an 
 important date in the case. 
 
 Mr. BESLEY I beg your pardon, gentlemen, you are right, 
 but that only makes my point the stronger, for the second pay- 
 ment in that case must have been on the Wednesday, and 
 Wednesday, the 9th, must have been the date when the big job 
 was done. It does not rest only on the payment of the account 
 on that day, because there were other reasons, viz., reference 
 to other books. On the llth bags of rice were conveyed by the 
 big van from a warehouse to 78 New Road, for there is an entry 
 of it, and Mr. Martin says, and will swear now, that on the 
 10th he had the big van in use, and on the llth he had it in use, 
 for on the llth he sent three tons of rice to Queen's Wharf 
 in it, while the small van was engaged in carrying other quan- 
 tities. It has been attempted to show that Mr. Martin might 
 have hired a big van, but he declares that at that time he never 
 hired. 
 
 I will now pass on to treat of the question of identity as now 
 affected by the evidence of Dr. Meadows and Mr. Aubyn. Dr. 
 Meadows is one of the highest authorities, if not the highest, 
 upon obstetric medicine. He has made that a specialty. He is 
 at the head of his profession, and the Attorney-General cannot 
 gainsay either that or the fact that he is a fair witness, not 
 concealing the difficulty of the inference when he says, " My 
 mind was and is inclined to the belief that these are the remains 
 of a woman who has never borne a child." Mr. Bond and Mr. 
 Larkin had given a different opinion, but Mr. Bond, in com- 
 mitting himself to an opinion unfavourable to the defence, shows 
 how little satisfied he is with his opinion, because he goes through 
 
 H 161
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley another operation after he has given his opinion. Dr. Meadows 
 frankly states to the jury that no one can with certainty infer 
 the fact from an examination after death. It is a fact known 
 in every medical school in London that it is so. But mark, 
 Dr. Meadows says that lapse of time makes no difference, and 
 that he can judge as well now as he could have done a twelve- 
 month ago, that it does not affect his opinion in any way. We 
 get, therefore first, that there is no certainty if you examine 
 the moment after death, and you know his conclusions; that, 
 contrary to Mr. Larkin and Mr. Bond, he infers a state of facts 
 exactly opposite to that necessary to support the prosecution. 
 He also tells you with reference to chloride of lime that it is a 
 bleaching agent which would render the colour of the hair 
 lighter. I call your attention to that because it is of importance 
 when you come to consider the evidence with regard to the hair. 
 
 Passing now to the evidence of Mr. Aubyn, unfavourable 
 comments no doubt will be made upon his demeanour in the 
 box, but remember it is a very trying position to be in on such 
 a trial as this for a witness to be examined by the Attorney- 
 General, and that Mr. Aubyn was excessively nervous. No one 
 can doubt that for a moment, for, with reference to the question 
 of the sutures, he went backwards and forwards until the matter 
 was involved in such confusion and absurdity that it would be 
 absurd to suppose that you could give him the credit which is 
 really due to his scientific attainments and observation. But 
 what does Mr. Aubyn do with regard to the hair? He produces 
 some of it which has not been subjected to the washing and 
 cleansing process, but in the state it was when the relatives of 
 Harriet Lane saw the remains. Now, if washing and cleansing 
 were necessary to produce the appearance of the true hair of 
 Harriet Lane, all that those witnesses saw was the hair which 
 had been cleansed, and there is not one of them who says, " I 
 recognised the hair directly because it was like hers, only a 
 little darker in colour." Those words, "only a little darker," 
 had not proceeded from the mouth of any of the relatives of 
 Harriet Lane. They all say, " That is the colour " ; not " that 
 it is the colour, only a little darker." But if that is the colour 
 of the hair of the human remains, the hair must be that of a 
 woman who had lighter hair than Harriet Lane. Then, again, 
 the hair of Harriet Lane is said to have been wavy or " frizzy." 
 I think that those were the terms used. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Miss Wilmore talked of her 
 "frizzing" her hair over her pads. 
 
 Mr. BESLBY I understood that the hair of Harriet Lane was
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 of a curly nature, that it was not long and perfectly straight, Mr. Beiley 
 as we find it when hair has been washed, or when produced 
 unwashed by Mr. Aubyn. There it is, and that hair turns out 
 to be not frizzy, or wavy, or curly, or anything of the kind. 
 Again, I say there is a marked discrepancy ae to identity with 
 reference to that particular point of the hair. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think the expression was she 
 " used to ' frizz ' her hair over the pad " ; but if any witness 
 said that the hair was " wavy" or " curly," and you call my 
 attention to it, I will take care that the fact is brought to the 
 notice of the jury. 
 
 Mr. BESLBY Thank you, my lord. Well, then, again, if 
 washing produces a lighter colour of hair than that of Harriet 
 Lane, you must not forget that there has been a further process 
 of lightening by the hair being in contact so long with such a 
 bleaching agent as chloride of lime. We have therefore a double 
 process of lightening going on before you get the colour of the 
 hair which is placed in your hands, so that the natural colour 
 must have been much darker than that which is spoken to by 
 the members of the same family. 
 
 I now pass to what I submit to you is of less importance, viz., 
 the age. Incidentally, I may say that I have given up Mr. 
 Aubyn on the question of age, for his answers with regard to the 
 sutures left my mind in such a vague state that I did not know 
 which of them remained, or if either remained. I thought I 
 gathered from him that one suture disappeared from twenty- 
 five to thirty, and that that had actually disappeared in the 
 remains. But in this question of age, I don't think the sutures 
 are an important test question; and remember that the other 
 medical witnesses say that they cannot swear to any period 
 within ten years. But the question of age involves a question 
 with regard to the teeth. Mr. Meadows said " If I were to 
 make a guess at the probable age of the remains, I should look 
 at the teeth, and, if the wisdom teeth were not cut, knowing 
 that they usually cut at about twenty-five, I should place the 
 age at about twenty-five." But all this is mere guesswork. 
 In the case of these remains, three of the wisdom teeth had 
 appeared, though Mr. Aubyn was so nervous that he seemed to 
 forget that there were four to cut two in each jaw. This 
 rather favours the age being more than twenty-five, as the 
 cutting process may last a considerable time, and you probably 
 know within your own experience that sometimes they are not 
 cut till late in life, and sometimes they are not cut at all. I 
 must therefore, as I do not propose to call a dental surgeon, 
 
 163
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mr. Besley leave the matter to you. All I submit is that, assuming twenty- 
 five to be the normal period, the correspondence of age between 
 these remains and the age of Harriet Lane in September, 1874, 
 immediately disappears. 
 
 With the decayed teeth I have already dealt. I do not 
 propose to revert to it again ; but there is the question of height, 
 and that is of much importance. I have already stated that 
 the height of the remains is established by concurrence of 
 measurement between Mr. Bond and Mr. Aubyn at 4 feet 11 
 inches. Now, that is an absolute fact. But you have it in 
 evidence that the height of Harriet Lane was perceptibly greater 
 than that of Mrs. Allen, and she, measured by Inspector Fox, 
 without her boots, was 5 feet J inch. That would give for Harriet 
 Lane, at the very lowest computation, for the difference might 
 have been as much as half an inch, a height of 5 feet inch, 
 eo there is a difference between her and those of the remains of 
 1| inches. How, then, can you believe that these are the 
 remains of Harriet Lane? 
 
 With regard to the scar, I labour under the disadvantage of 
 having a nervous witness in Mr. Aubyn, and he said in cross- 
 examination he would not be positive that the appearance of the 
 piece of skin, which he thought bore a scar, was not produced 
 by decomposition ; but the fact still remains that he is of opinion 
 that it is a true scar. If so, it is a mark which has never been 
 noticed by any of the Lane family, and if there is a mark or 
 scar on both legs of these remains, what reliance or importance 
 can you place on the scar on the right leg, of which not a syllable 
 was said by the medical men until its existence on Harriet Lane 
 had been referred to by members of the Lane family ? 
 
 I believe I have now treated all the real points involved in 
 the medical testimony as to identity, and I say no more than 
 again repeat, that if you find that, although there are one or 
 two things still capable of being proved, there remain some one 
 or two even that have been answered, you will not come to a 
 decision unfavourable to the prisoners. 
 
 I now pass to the evidence given by Mr. Martin. He speaks 
 of Henry Wainwright being at his ordinary duties from eight 
 o'clock in the morning till eight at night on 10th September, 
 and from eight in the morning till eight at night on the llth. 
 These are the dates of the purchase of the axe and spade, and of 
 the employment of Stokes, which led to the apprehension of 
 Henry Wainwright. Upon both of these days he was engaged 
 on the first in making up the books, and on the Saturday in 
 paying the men and it is suggested that the mutilation took 
 
 164
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 place between the afternoon of the Friday and Saturday. Hi Mr. Besley 
 character has been spoken to as of a kind and humane man, 
 and as to that it is for you to consider how far his conduct is 
 consistent with a person who has been guilty of this crime. 
 
 I am now about to close my task. You will retire to your 
 room at some period now approaching, and there quietly amongst 
 yourselves will have to say, first of all, if this crime has been 
 conclusively proved to be the deprivation of the life of a woman 
 by another or by herself; and, secondly, you will have to 
 consider, are those remains the remains of Harriet Lane beyond 
 any reasonable doubt? 
 
 Speech on behalf of Thomas George Wainwright 
 
 Mr. MOODY said My learned friend, in adverting to the Mr. Moody 
 solemn nature of the duty devolving upon all engaged in this 
 trial, has treated the subject so well that I can add nothing to 
 what he has said, and to travel over the same ground again 
 would only be to show my inferiority. I shall therefore only 
 allude to it on behalf of Thomas Wainwright. One of the charges 
 is that of being an accessory before the fact, and the other that 
 of being an accessory after the fact. The former is most serious. 
 The Attorney-General has said that the charges of being an 
 accessory before and after the fact are very different, and that 
 is so; for whilst the latter can be visited with the heaviest 
 penalty the law can give, short of sentence of death, on the 
 former the more grave sentence can be passed. My learned 
 friend at one time appeared to anticipate that I might, ^n 
 the course of my address on behalf of Thomas, take views which 
 'might appear antagonistic to his client Henry ; all I can say on 
 that matter is, nothing can be further from the wishes of my 
 client, or further from my intention, that I should adopt such 
 a course. There may, however, be reasons why I should address 
 you upon the point whether or not Thomaa Wainwright, if 
 there has been murder committed, aided and abetted it. If 
 it should be left to you to decide that these remains are the 
 remains of an unknown person, then, so far as Thomas Wain- 
 wright is concerned, there will be nothing to answer in the 
 Frieake episode, and the telegram and the letter would fall to 
 the ground. There would still remain the question of the shovel 
 and axe, but that would be far too trivial a matter to justify 
 a man being put on his trial as an accessory. 
 
 The case as opened on the part of the prosecution presents 
 
 165
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 p. Moody the charge against Thomas to you in this way, that the prisoner 
 Henry Wainwright, having been on terms of intimacy with the 
 woman, became tired of her, and was most anxious to break 
 off the connection, and on this account entered into a plot with 
 some person that the woman should disappear. But it could 
 hardly be conceived that he would have taken such complicated 
 measures to guard against inquiry, which there was no ground 
 for supposing would ever be made. Then, again, the prosecution 
 allege the existence of a plot for a long time, and they call 
 before you Mrs. Wells to say that it had been conceived and 
 entered upon within a week or two of Christmas, because she said 
 that a man who answered to the name of Edward came within 
 a week or two after the second confinement of Mrs. King, which 
 she fixes at December, 1873. Therefore, according to that, 
 thisi plot must have been conceived so far back as December, 
 1873, when there was no ground for saying that there was 
 any reason for such a thing. The only ground set out at that 
 time was that there was a difference and a coldness between 
 them; but you ought not to take that into account. Henry 
 Wainwright has been proved to be a kindly and humane man, 
 who has won the respect and esteem of every one with whom 
 he came in contact, and if he be a man of that kind, may it not 
 have been that he paused and hesitated in the course he was 
 following with Harriet Lane? It seems to me that that is a 
 reasonable supposition, especially when it is seen that he takes 
 care of her welfare and supplies her with money. If that be so, 
 is it at all likely that any such plot could have been entered 
 into at any period before the actual pressure for money arose? 
 If my theory be correct, there was no other cause, there 
 could be no other cause, and that appears to be one of the 
 difficulties which the prosecution have to meet. 
 
 Then, again, if such a plot were to be entered into, it would 
 not be probable that a person so well known as Mr. Frieake 
 would be selected as the man to be represented, or that the 
 man to represent him would be a young man without either 
 beard or moustache. If this woman was to be deceived by a 
 person with a false name, the last person selected for that 
 purpose would be one who would probably often be seen in the 
 company of Henry. From time to time this woman went to 
 No. 84, and if this was the case, why should she be asked to 
 believe that he was Frieake? She might have heard him there 
 addressed by his own name, or be told by any person in the 
 establishment that it was Mr. Wainwright's brother. This is a 
 strong reason for believing that this plot was not formed, but 
 
 166
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 merely evolved from the minds of the various parties interested Mr. Moody 
 from what took place after the disappearance. 
 
 I think I shall satisfy you that the proof of Thomas Wain- 
 wright being in the several places in which he was alleged to 
 be is of the flimsiest and most unreliable description. In the 
 first place, I shall draw your attention to the evidence of Mrs. 
 Wells. It is clearly evident that Mr. Frieake and Henry Wain- 
 wright were upon terms of intimacy and friendship for years, 
 and that they were in the habit of addressing each other by the 
 respective names of Teddy and Harry. Mrs. Wells says that 
 some time by gaslight Mr. King came to her house, and brought 
 with him a person whom she showed into the parlour, and 
 then she went into another room about her own business. She 
 had no occasion to pay any special attention to this occurrence, 
 and therefore the visit was not in any way calculated to greatly 
 impress her. The parties remained in the house for some time, 
 but she did not speak to having seen him again. She heard 
 a voice from upstairs saying, "Edward, will you come upt" 
 It is clear that Henry Wainwright never addressed the real Mr. 
 Frieake by the name of Edward. Therefore, if he were talking 
 to a man who was trying to pass off as the real Mr. Frieake 
 one would think he would act towards him as if he had been 
 that person, and not some one else. If he had taken a person 
 there to represent him as Mr. Frieake, the natural thing would 
 have been for him to go downstairs and speak to him, asking 
 him then to walk up. This is rather the language of a master 
 to his servant, or the manner in which a tradesman who called 
 upon a matter of business about furniture or such like would be 
 addressed. There was another interview equally transient, and 
 in which it was equally impossible to form any satisfactory 
 opinion. One night when the gas was burning a cab came to 
 the door, and Mrs. King came out of it, followed by the man 
 said to be called Edward. As regards the operation of the 
 identification of Thomas Wainwright, the whole time spoken 
 to by the several witnesses may be comprised in as many 
 seconds ; and out of the eight or ten descriptions of the prisoner, 
 none of them exactly agreed. Mrs. Wells said, if he had a 
 moustache at all, it must have been a very slight one. If a 
 person came to speak to the identity of another, and was not 
 certain as to the existence or non-existence of so prominent 
 a matter as a moustache, what reliance would be placed on the 
 identification at all? The witness had never been called upon 
 to exercise her memory in regard to this man, and this inter- 
 view, taking place in January, 1874, and the witness not seeing 
 
 167
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Mr. Moody the prisoner until October, 1875, a period of about one year 
 and eight or nine months, that is rather a long period over which 
 to carry one's recollections and to remember either faces or 
 names. When she did venture to say she recognised him, it is 
 ' when she sees him in the dock, knowing him to be charged 
 with representing himself as Frieake, standing beside a man 
 whom she knows to be charged with a serious crime. 
 
 We now come to Miss Wilmore. She must recommend 
 herself very much to your feelings, because she is a person who, 
 for months after the disappearance of Harriet Lane, discharged 
 the duties of a mother to the children left behind. She was the 
 constant friend and companion of Harriet Lane from the date 
 of her apprenticeship until she was last heard of, and she was, 
 it seems, always in her confidence. If, then, any one pre- 
 sented himself to her friend as being called Frieake, she would 
 be likely to take a searching look at the person. From the 
 deficiency of the sense of hearing, her perception would in all 
 probability be the more acutely developed, so that she was more 
 likely to take a keener observation of this person than either 
 Mrs. Wells, Mrs. Foster, or Mrs. Stanley. Miss Wilmore 
 gave a description of this Frieake at the coroner's inquest, at the 
 Police Court, and during the present trial, a description to 
 which Thomas could never have answered. She said he was 
 very young-looking, well dressed, of light complexion, had 
 light hair, light moustache, and was rather fair and long. That 
 was given from her memory, and upon the several occasions 
 specified her account was substantially the same. You will bear 
 in mind those words, " rather fair and long," because they 
 differ in many respects from the evidence given by Mrs. Foster. 
 
 This latter lady is the next witness to whom I shall call your 
 notice. She says this person came to her house at most upon 
 three occasions two or three times. Upon the first occasion 
 Mrs. Foster opened the door. Mrs. King, who was standing 
 at the stairs, said, " Mr. Frieake, will you walk up? " which he, 
 without comment, immediately did. The other occasion was 
 when Mrs. Foster let him in and announced him upstairs. A 
 very short space of time was then occupied, and the only words 
 that passed were those conveying the information that he was 
 Mr. Frieake. On the night of the disturbance in the street 
 she could not be expected to pay any attention to this man, 
 even if he were present. She addressed him whom she sup- 
 posed to be Mr. King, and then ran into her house, seeing no 
 more of the parties outside. You will, I think, agree with me 
 that those three transactions could not have occupied more than 
 
 168
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 a couple of minutes. This took place on 1st September, 1874, Mr. Moody 
 and she did not see the prisoner until he was in custody on 
 2nd October, 1875 a period of thirteen months she was 
 shown a number of men, and told to select the person whom 
 she had formerly seen. This was the only witness to whom this 
 test was applied, and she failed to recognise him. She neit 
 saw him in the dock at a time when he was alleged to be the 
 man who called at her house. Under those unfavourable circum- 
 stances, she said, " He is about the size and stature of the man; 
 very possibly he is the man. He had only a little- moustache." 
 How does that description accord with the others? She added 
 that he had very little whiskers, very light; she was the only 
 witness who imported the whiskers into the case. It would 
 therefore be absolutely impossible to rely on the evidence of this 
 woman when she failed to recognise the prisoner when the 
 surrounding circumstances were favourable to him. There was 
 a Miss Foster living in this house, and he would like to ask the 
 prosecution why she was not called. Had she no opportunities 
 for seeing the person who alleged himself to be Frieake? 
 
 We now come to Mrs. Amelia Stanley. She knew Mrs. King 
 merely as a lodger, and she could not be specially attracted by 
 any one calling to see her lodger casually. The visitor stood in 
 the passage while Mrs. Stanley went upstairs to announce him 
 as Mr. Frieake, and to return with the answer of the lodger. 
 Mrs. King, " Show him up." There was no time allowed here 
 for any close observation, for the visitor at once proceeded 
 upstairs. It is on such an identification that you are asked to 
 believe that Thomas Wainwright went to the house and repre- 
 sented himself as Frieake. 
 
 I will now advert to an observation of the Attorney-General. 
 He said that all these witnesses gave their evidence with great 
 doubt and hesitation when at the Police Court as to the identity 
 of Thomas Wainwright with Frieake, and, if it depended upon 
 them, he should not himself be satisfied with their testimony 
 in his own mind without strong confirmatory testimony. But 
 of what did that testimony consist? Of one witness only, Mr. 
 Humphries, and he stands before you in this position. Before 
 he left the box his lordship told him there were grave doubts 
 as to his accuracy, as he had fixed upon a time incompatible 
 with the other evidence in this case. It is the theory of the 
 prosecution that these two prisoners were plotting the murder 
 of Harriet Lane, and that in pursuance of that plot they went 
 to a public-house kept by a man who knew him, exactly 
 opposite the house of their intended victim, and were smoking
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 HP Moody and drinking there in the bar, where they might have been 
 seen by any one from Harriet Lane's house, or, perhaps, by 
 Harriet Lane herself. Could anything more improbable be 
 imagined? But that is their theory, and Mr. Humphries came 
 to prove it, and he brought his book, which was undoubtedly 
 wrong, to prove that it was Saturday, 5th September. But that 
 was not the only error, because it was more than probable that 
 the pint and quart of champagne he deposed to selling were had 
 on different days. Mrs. Foster went and borrowed three glasses, 
 and only two were used. There were only two persons for 
 whom the wine came, and why did she get three? Possibly 
 she thought they would ask her to take a glass. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The same thought occurred to me. 
 
 Mr. MOODY I am happy to be confirmed by the Lord Chief 
 Justice. Mrs. Foster was not asked to drink, and whether or 
 not she thought the rising generation less polite than in her 
 younger days, the disappointment was one likely to impress the 
 matter upon her memory, and she said the two bottles came 
 upon two several occasions, thereby flatly contradicting Mr. 
 Humphries' evidence. Again, he said it was on the 5th that 
 the disturbance took place. Afterwards Mrs. Foster did not 
 put either of the nights when there was champagne as that 
 of the disturbance. When the woman came there, contrary to 
 her usual habits, in liquor, and the disturbance took place, 
 she had had her drink away from the house. Humphries 
 therefore was indubitably wrong on that point also. His 
 conduct as a witness is open to just remark. Mr. Frieake at 
 once, when he heard of the affair, gave information, and told 
 all he knew, but Mr. Humphries, although he admits reading 
 Mrs. Foster's evidence before the magistrates, kept all he knew 
 to himself till 23rd October. 
 
 I will now refer to the letter of Mrs. King to Mr. Frieake. 
 It is dated Saturday night, and Mr. Frieake thought he received 
 it on the last Monday in August, which would make it to be 
 written on Saturday, 29th August. I shall present it to you 
 from a different point of view to that given by Mr. Besley, 
 though with no intention of prejudicing his client in the least. 
 The contents of the letter showed that it was not written with 
 a view to eome arrangement for transferring herself from 
 Henry Wainwright to the person addressed. He was rather 
 above her in position, from whom she had received benefits, 
 and looked for more. I have shown you that there are great 
 170
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 doubts aa to the reality of this Frieake episode at all, but if Mr. Moody 
 it did take place, its object was, I think, quite different. The 
 letter, which has been often read, begins, " I trust you will 
 pardon me for writing to you," and concludes with the words, 
 " As the time is now growing short," and " In future I will 
 promise to behave more ladylike." As a matter of fact, this 
 letter has never been brought to my client's knowledge at all. 
 It seems to me that this matter affords ground for the belief 
 that peace was the reason of this design. We know from evi- 
 dence that in May Henry Wainwright was in pecuniary 
 difficulty. I have adverted to reasons why the prisoner Henry 
 should be desirous of placing his relationship with this woman 
 on a different footing. I can conceive Henry Wainwright 
 desiring that she should suffer as little inconvenience as possible, 
 and still finding it impossible to continue the relationship which 
 had existed between them, and desiring to make some permanent 
 provision for her, so that she might contribute to her own 
 support, it might be by reverting to dressmaking, while he was 
 oppressed with difficulties. At the same time it would have 
 been inconsistent with him in this state of pecuniary difficulty 
 to appear to be advancing any considerable sum out of his own 
 means. He may have naturally concluded, " If she receives 
 this money from me, she will think I have been deceiving her 
 as to my position; and if, therefore, I can get together a sum 
 of money, it will be better to represent it as coming from a 
 friend, and as being in the nature of a loan, and through that 
 friend to make arrangements for terminating my ambiguous 
 position with her." He may thus have obtained the aid of 
 some friend, but certainly he was not likely to take his brother, 
 as he was the very person who would be most likely to be found 
 out by Harriet Lane. If he were to represent him as his good 
 friend E. Frieake, who was advancing the money, on such a 
 supposition as this, I say the letter of Harriet Lane is precisely 
 such a one as would be written by a woman to a man who 
 had been at first, it may be ungraciously, the negotiator of the 
 prisoner Henry, but who afterwards wished to reopen negotia- 
 tions. If that is consistent, what becomes of the value of the 
 Frieake theory, as something prepared and leading up to what, 
 for the purposes of argument, I will call a murder? I may 
 have to advert later on to the charge of Thomas Wainwright 
 being an accessory after the fact. 
 
 I now propose to sum up shortly what I have been en- 
 deavouring to impress upon your minds. First I submit that 
 from the character of the man, with regard to the principal 
 
 171
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Moody charge, there is every probability that he never could have been 
 engaged for any length of time in so cruel, so cold-blooded, and 
 so treacherous a design as the prosecution have alleged against 
 him; that if such a design was ever present to his mind, it 
 could not have been carried out by such a person. There is the 
 greatest improbability that the prisoner Henry Wainwright 
 should have selected his brother, with whom he might at any 
 time be seen in contact, to act the part of this simulated Mr. 
 Frieake. In no way has the evidence in the case tending to 
 the identity of Thomas Wainwright as Mr. Frieake been 
 strengthened as compared with what it was at the Police Court, 
 although on one point the Attorney-General observed to you 
 that it would not be safe to rely upon it. I have submitted 
 grave reasons to you why I say that Mr. Humphries has not 
 strengthened the case, and therefore I ask you to rely on what 
 the Attorney -General said in his opening on the point. I have 
 endeavoured to show further, that even if you should be of 
 opinion that Thomas Wainwright did take part in any portion 
 of this Frieake episode anterior to the disappearance of Harriet 
 Lane, even then his conduct is consistent with the theory 1 
 have presented to you, and is not only inconsistent with the 
 evidence of a guilty design, but is consistent with a truly laud- 
 able motive, for the advancement of the comfort of this woman. 
 I shall address you in a subsequent part of the case on the whole 
 facts extending over the whole transaction. 
 
 Before finally leaving the subject of accessory before the 
 fact, I may call your attention to the fact that the last time 
 Frieake was seen in the house was clearly before 1st September, 
 and there has been no evidence produced to show that Frieake 
 ever was there afterwards. From that time he disappears 
 from the case till somewhere about 9th or 10th September, 1875, 
 and the only connection of his with the case is the letter and 
 the telegram. Therefore, for twelve months there is no evidence 
 of his having taken any active corporeal part in the matter. 
 Even as regards the one or two facts which the prosecution 
 allege, there is considerable space intervening between 1st 
 September and these occurrences. The allegation of the prose- 
 cution is that, contemplating her disappearance, and in order 
 to form an excuse for it, Frieake is introduced before her dis- 
 appearance, and facts are created in order to lay the foundation 
 of the theory that she had gone away with him. If persons 
 prepare an elaborate scheme to meet an emergency, they would 
 be expected to use it when the emergency arose. The scheme 
 having been elaborated with such care and prepared to meet 
 172
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 the emergency, it is not used at the time when it would naturally Mr. Moody 
 be expected that it would be used. Reasons may be put to you 
 for this. I must ask you to bear in mind that such reasons 
 can only be speculation, as there has been no foundation of any 
 fact for them. Another view to be taken is that if this plot was 
 prepared for this 'purpose, one could have imagined that there 
 would have been communications between the prisoners taking 
 part in it immediately after the inquiry was set on foot, as 
 their object would have been to prevent inquiry. Under such 
 circumstances the reasonable course would have been, when the 
 disappearance took place, that there should have been a com- 
 munication forwarded in order to prevent visits from Miss 
 Wilmore to the house. 
 
 Now we come to the Dover letter. That letter was received 
 before 1 7th October, the date on which the telegrams were sent, 
 and taking the limit the other way, one of the witnesses had 
 said it must have been received three weeks after the disappear- 
 ance. That would put the letter in any case at a date not before 
 October, 1874. That letter is used, and you will observe that 
 upon it I have not founded a single question in cross-examina- 
 tion, the only question put being to Mr. Chabot, as to whether 
 the writing was not an undisguised writing, and he replied that 
 as regarded the writing it was an honest letter. Do you not 
 believe that the first impulse of a man called upon to execute 
 such a task would be in some way to disguise his handwriting? 
 
 Of course it may be said, " How, then, came it to be 
 written? " and then, undoubtedly, does arrive a difficulty, which 
 has been present to the mind of the Attorney-General. When 
 Henry Wainwright was taken into custody, the charge was no 
 doubt a matter of surprise and astonishment to Thomas, but 
 when the matter came before the Police Court it could not have 
 been long before the name of Frieake was called to his attention ; 
 but you have him remaining in London, liable at any moment 
 to be arrested, whilst he had the means of escape at hand. If 
 there were any consciousness of guilt in Thomas Wainwright' s 
 mind, would he have abstained from flight? Then he has spoken 
 of the spade and the axe, which he says he did buy; but no 
 one would have expected him to come forward against his 
 brother. Then he said when taken into custody, " I have 
 done no more than one brother would do for another," and 
 really I do not think that the prosecution would attempt to 
 strain that into an admission of guilt. It is not improbable 
 that the one brother might have gone to the other and said, 
 " She has disappeared, and her friends have a notion I am 
 
 173
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Moody with her, and they are coming here and making a noise, and 
 I want to stop it. I know the person with whom she has 
 gone away. Will you write a letter? " One can conceive the 
 possibility of men whose lives were devoted to works of piety 
 even doing such a thing as this to relieve a relative from some 
 temporary trouble, however much they might regret that he had 
 fallen from the right way. 
 
 Connected with this branch of the evidence is that which 
 refers to the telegram. There is nothing to prove that it ever 
 reached the hands of Thomas Wainwright. Three telegrams 
 appear to have been sent consecutively by the same person one 
 on 17th October, one of them being to some place at Fulham 
 or Walham Green. The prosecution have failed to prove that 
 at that time Thomas Wainwright was actually residing at 
 Walham Green. If there had been a real residence there it 
 would have been the easiest thing in the world to have adduced 
 proof in regard to it. From other circumstances in this case 
 you will understand it was not in that house that his wife and 
 family resided. The telegram being the last entered in the 
 book of the Walham Green Post Office it would appear to have 
 been the latest received, and it is not improbable that instead 
 of punctually delivering it, the tired message boy went home 
 for supper, and the dispatch may never have reached its 
 destination. 
 
 Another circumstance of importance is that while in the 
 letter from Charing Cross Hotel the name is spelled " Frieake," 
 yet in this telegram it is spelled " Freeke." If those telegrams 
 were sent as a means to deceive and mislead Miss Wilmore 
 and Mrs. Taylor, they could never have been sent by any person 
 actually cognisant of the purpose for which they were sent. 
 There is nothing whatever to connect Thomas Wainwright 
 with these telegrams, and it is an absurdity to suppose a man 
 would telegraph to himself facts with which he is supposed to 
 be familiar. Supposing a man had consented to write the letter 
 to which I have referred, might not something of this kind 
 happen he would say, " I hope this business is all right," 
 and receive for answer, " No doubt there will shortly be an 
 intimation from them, and very likely there will be a telegram 
 to say it is all right, in which case you shall know." In some 
 such way as this the telegram may be capable of explanation. 
 No other explanation can be given of a document which has 
 never been seen, and which is in no way brought before us. 
 
 That concludes the connection of my client with this case. 
 During the subsequent transaction in the following months he 
 
 174
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 had nothing to do with it. According to Mr. Pettigrew, on Mr. Moody 
 or about 10th September, 1875, he purchased a hatchet and 
 spade, and these from Mr. Pettigrew, a man who has known 
 him for years. He tells for whom he wants them, and, going 
 back, delivers them, making a profit on the transaction a 
 thing which, if he were conscious of the fearful crime, would 
 scarcely be present to his mind. Besides, being in the trade, 
 he could have obliterated all trace of the purchase by erasing 
 the trade marks. 
 
 The interview on llth September is one of those instances of 
 unsatisfactory evidence, of which there have been several in this 
 trial. The man Alfred Young said he saw Henry and Thomas 
 Wainwright on llth September in conversation outside of Mr. 
 Martin's door. Why did the witness not come previously 
 forward to say so, until, one or two days before the prisoner 
 Thomas was expected to be put on his trial, he said he talked 
 the matter over with his father? The discovery took place at 
 five in the afternoon on the other side of the water, at a 
 distance from the house of the witness, and was not generally 
 known until the publication of the morning and evening papers 
 on Monday following, the 13th. This, therefore, I take to be 
 a second instance of defective memory. With regard to the 
 date, I think this conversation may have taken place on the 
 morning of the 10th, when Thomas was in the neighbourhood, 
 rather than on the morning of the llth. The two brothers 
 were seen talking together. One was observed to be rather 
 unwell, and his moustache appeared to be shaved off. It is 
 upon that that the prosecution endeavour to build up some 
 vague suspicion of a man having been employed for hours 
 during that night in performing this fearful and ghastly work 
 of mutilation. If this fearful work had to be done, was it likely 
 a third person would be brought needlessly into the matter? 
 If Thomas had assisted in this cutting and chopping, why did 
 he not take part in the removal? Why, under such circum- 
 stances, should the chances of detection be multiplied? Surely 
 if Thomas had been engaged in this work, it was madness to 
 needlessly enlarge the area of discovery by bringing in the 
 agency of Stokes. In fact, there is nothing on which to base 
 this supposition but surmise, arising from his having a pale 
 and haggard look while talking to his brother outside the shop 
 on llth September. 
 
 As regards the keys of the Hen and Chickens, you will have 
 seen that they were taken possession of in the ordinary course 
 of business by their lawful owner. It is alleged that the key 
 
 175
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Mr. Moody was handed by Thomas to his brother Henry, but there is no 
 evidence on that point. You have seen the key and padlock. 
 It is as ordinary a piece of ironmongery as any that can be seen. 
 The locksmith said the key found on Henry Wainwright was 
 the one which properly would go with the padlock, but, sup- 
 posing it did, these locks are sold by thousands, and the key 
 of one- will easily unlock another. But if it were admitted that 
 it did pass from the one brother to the other, what proof is 
 there that it was for any criminal purpose? At any rate, the 
 tenure by Thomas of the premises in Southwark was as insecure 
 as that of Henry at Whitechapel Road, and if he were a party 
 to such a concealment, is it at all likely that he would consent 
 to the body being placed where he might have to give up the 
 premises very shortly? 
 
 I have now gone over all the circumstances which followed 
 llth September, 1874. I think I have shown that in each link 
 of evidence the one great essential of guilty knowledge is absent ; 
 and I therefore ask you to reject the theoiy of the prosecution 
 altogether. Looking at the case as a whole, I ask you to con- 
 clude that even if the person who appeared in the Frieake scheme 
 was the same as wrote the letter from the Charing Cross Hotel, 
 there isi still the same deficiency of guilty knowledge on his 
 part. The loan of a key to a brother does not call for any 
 elaborate explanation. One brother talking to another outside 
 the shop at which one of them works does not imply guilty 
 knowledge. Whether you look at the prisoner with respect to 
 the charge of being an accessory before the fact or after the 
 fact, guilty knowledge is still conspicuous by its absence. Man 
 does not lightly shed blood. If there is one crime that men 
 instinctively abhor, it is that of taking life, and, above all, 
 the life of a woman with whom he has lived on terms of 
 intimacy and respect; but what the prosecution ask you to 
 believe is that my client, Thomas Wainwright, has imbrued 
 his hands in the blood of one who never did him the slightest 
 harm, and whose existence produced not the slightest annoyance 
 or trouble to him. It is, say the prosecution, nonsense to 
 account for his writing the letter by brotherly affection. But 
 is it not in a still greater degree nonsense to ask you to believe 
 he has imbrued his hands in the blood of an innocent woman 
 from brotherly affection ? The case for the prosecution is that 
 this woman had claims on Henry Wainwright which were so 
 burdensome and impossible, from his impecuniosity, for him 
 to meet, that he does not shrink from this dreadful crime; 
 yet you are to believe, notwithstanding that utter impecuniosity, 
 
 176
 
 Addresses to Jury. 
 
 that he was in a condition to bribe his brother to assist in this Mr. Moody 
 dreadful deed. They have, however, never shown the passing 
 of any money, not even of a single sum. I know there is the 
 bill spoken of by Lewis, of its acceptance and discounting, but 
 how can you tell the money did not go to the acceptor? I do 
 not think, however, much reliance can be placed on the evidence 
 of Lewis, who evidently gave it with a bias, and blurted out 
 irrelevant things calculated to injure the prisoners. It is 
 strange, however, that if there was any truth in the story of the 
 300 acceptance, he should never have communicated it to the 
 solicitor of the Treasury, and that it should not have been 
 opened by the Attorney-General. 
 
 I have now touched upon almost every point in the case, 
 except the moustache and beard. I propose to call before you 
 Mr. Arkell, a respectable ironmonger in Oxford Street, who 
 will state to you that from the arrangements under which his 
 business is carried on, he is able to say that Thomas Wain- 
 wright, who was in his employment in 1874, from March to 
 October, was never absent from his work except for three days 
 in August, when he had a holiday, and his working hours were 
 from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. I don't put it as an alibi, because it 
 is quite possible he might after 8.30 p.m. have been able to 
 reach Sidney Square, and have been present on the night of the 
 disturbance there. Mr. Arkell gives a direct contradiction to 
 the evidence of Miss Wilmore, Mrs. Foster, Mrs. Stanley, and 
 Rogers as to the colour of his hair as compared with that of the 
 man said to be Frieake. I now propose to call only three 
 witnesses Mr. Arkell, the solicitor, and Mr. Rufer, if he is 
 here ; and I think their evidence will tend to satisfy you on many 
 points in this case. 
 
 Evidence for Thomas George Wainwright. 
 
 ALEXANDER ARKETLL, examined by Mr. MOODY I am in bum- A. Arkell 
 ness as an ironmonger at 291 Oxford Street, close to Davies 
 Street. I knew the prisoner Thomas, who entered my service 
 as shopman on 30th March, 1874, and continued with me until 
 10th October. I employ various countermen, and I have a sheet 
 on which are entered each day the takings of each counterman. 
 I have the sheet here. Each counterman enters into a separate 
 column his sales. During the time Thomas Wainwright was 
 in my employment he was very regular, except that he was late 
 in the morning. He was absent four or five days, which by 
 reference to my sheet I find to be llth May, 22nd June, 3rd, 
 
 177
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 A. Arkell 4th, 5th, and 13th August, and 7th October. 3rd August was 
 the Bank Holiday, the 4th and 5th were holidays I gave. While 
 I was away in August I received a telegram from him from 
 Ramsgate, 3rd August, asking me to let him stay another day. 
 He was not late every morning, but usually late on a Monday. 
 He ought to have been at business at 8 a.m. He left at 8 p.m., 
 when the shop closed. He generally got away at 8.10 or 8.15. 
 During the time he was in my service he wore a full dark 
 moustache, but never a beard, and no whiskers. The colour 
 of the moustache was dark. I am not a locksmith, but I deal 
 in locks. (Padlock and keys handed to witness.) That is about 
 a shilling padlock. They are made in large quantities, and it 
 would be extraordinary to find a key that would not fit it. 
 (Witness turned both keys in the padlock, unlocking with both.) 
 There is no doubt one key fits the lock best, but even that I 
 should not call the proper fit. I am not sure that it was not 
 intended for the lock, but either of them would do equally well. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL Thomas Wain- 
 wright was engaged as shop manager. I used occasionally to 
 send him out to collect debts, but not frequently. I had four 
 countermen at the time he was with me, of whom he was one. 
 
 Did Thomas Wainwright, on 1st September, only sell five 
 articles? Do you infer from that he was not present all day? 
 Yes. 
 
 On 5th September, I see from your sheets, that while Alfred 
 sold a column full of articles, Thomas Wainwright only sold 
 seven articles. What is your inference from that? That was 
 Saturday, when we close at five o'clock. Either he waa out 
 coUecting, or he was dressing the window, when he would not 
 have much to do with the counter. 
 
 Was he a good salesman? I never knew his equal. 
 
 I see on 10th September, 1874, the number of articles 
 entered as sold by Thomas Wainwright is about equal to the 
 sales of Alfred. Do you infer from that that the prisoner waa 
 away on part of that day? I think he was there the whole day, 
 but the day may have been wet. 
 
 Look again to llth September. What should you eay as to 
 that? That as far as the till was concerned, it seems to have 
 been one of our worst days. This day might have been a wet 
 day. On this day, I see the sales are small matters, which 
 would be left to younger hands. On that day, no doubt, he 
 would be dressing the window. 
 
 How many sales did he make that day? I see they are 
 46s. lid., double any other man's. 
 
 178
 
 Evidence for Defence. 
 
 Do you say they are greater than any of the others? A.Arkell 
 Yes; more than double the money of the others. 
 
 On 13th August you say he was away all day? Yes; he 
 was away altogether, but I find from these sheets he was back on 
 the 14th. While he was working with me he was living some- 
 where at Fulham, but I never of my own knowledge knew 
 where. 
 
 Did you discharge him? Yes, sir. I discharged him for 
 two reasons. He had been, as I have said, very irregular of 
 a morning, and it came to my knowledge that he had deserted 
 his wife. I never spoke to him about living at Parson's 
 Green, or about Mrs. Raper. 
 
 Re-examined I paid Thomas Wainwright two guineas a 
 week, besides commission on sales, which amounted to about 
 50s. a week. He was manager in my absence. 
 
 CHARLBS GEORGE GRAULIBB, examined I am a solicitor of c> G( G raulier 
 the Supreme Court. Formerly I was an attorney. My offices 
 are 13 Railway Approach, London Bridge. The prisoner Thomas 
 was a client of mine. He came first to consult me in February, 
 1875, at which time he was about to open the Hen and Chickens. 
 I was employed to draw up an agreement between him and Mr. 
 Moore, but it was never completed. The lease was not actually 
 executed in consequence of Mr. Moore not carrying out his part 
 of the agreement. After the failure of the business at the Hen 
 and Chickens, I was consulted by Thomas with regard to the 
 surrender of the premises. I corresponded on the subject with 
 Mr. Stuckey, the solicitor for the lessor, at Brighton. 
 
 I believe no rent had been paid for the Midsummer quarter, 
 and Mr. Stuckey wrote to me and said that if he accepted the 
 key the quarter's rent and the costs of the lease should be paid. 
 I have experienced in such cases that by the time a second 
 quarter's rent is due the difficulty disappears, when there is 
 nothing to distrain. The earliest time at which I was spoken 
 to about the surrender of the premises to Thomas Wainwright 
 was the beginning of August, or it might have been the last 
 few days of July. I met him in the street and he spoke to me 
 about it. 
 
 Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have known 
 Thomas since the beginning of January, 1876. I had never 
 seen him before that. I have no idea what his private residence 
 was then. He had started in business then; the agents had 
 given him possession. He had some goods in the shop. He 
 told me he lived at the Rosamond, at Fulham. I do not think 
 
 179
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 C. G. Graullep I wrote to him there, but he told me so that I might communi- 
 cate with him on hearing from Mr. Stuckey in reference to the 
 lease. The partnership with Mr. Moore went off at the begin- 
 ning of June, when I was first made acquainted with it. 
 
 Re-examined I wished to communicate with him to let him 
 know about the lessors, and he told me to write to him at the 
 Rosamond, at Fulham. That was all he told me. Beyond that 
 I knew nothing of my own knowledge. I cannot tell whether 
 he was only there on a visit. 
 
 Evidence for Thomas George Wainwright closed. 
 
 Closing Speech for Thomas George Wainwright. 
 
 Mr. Moody Mr. MOODY said The witness I have called before you has 
 established the fact that Thomas could not have been aware 
 that the Hen and Chickens was to be made a place of deposit 
 for the body, when he was about to give up the premises. The 
 first inquiries would naturally be made of the last occupier, and 
 a man would hesitate a long time before he submitted to 
 being made the first person to whom attention should be drawn. 
 From the evidence I have called before you, you will gather 
 that there has been no change in the personal appearance of 
 Thomas, and that he had during the whole time spoken of his 
 present dark, full moustache, and therefore could not have 
 passed by the description given by several of the witnesses for 
 the prosecution. If your minds are clear on that point, I 
 again ask you to acquit him entirely of any guilty knowledge 
 with reference to the letter and the spade, and if the writing 
 of the letter were put to him in the way it has been suggested, 
 is it at all probable that a man would suspect his own brother 
 of that which even the relatives did not suspect? The writing 
 of the letter was a, matter which one man might well do for 
 another. The charge is that, without motive, he made himself 
 a partner to a scheme of blood. Such a charge is one founded 
 on the grossest improbability. Such a charge should be sup- 
 ported by evidence beyond suspicion, but there no doubt is 
 grave suspicion in the evidence in this case, and I trust you 
 will find yourselves able to say that you think the letter E 
 (from Dover) was written without any guilty knowledge, and it 
 will be your pleasure to say that he is not guilty. In asking 
 you to give this verdict on behalf of Thomas, I may say, although 
 without any authority to do so, I am asking for the same 
 verdict on the part of Henry. 
 
 Adjourned till to-morrow. 
 180
 
 Eighth Day Tuesday, 30th November, 1875. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, on taking his seat at a few minutes 
 after 10 a.m., said he had great difficulty in getting into the 
 Court. 
 
 . Mr. BESLET, addressing his lordship, said that he had looked 
 over the evidence, and found that it completely bore out his 
 statement in his speech on Monday that the hair of Harriet 
 Lane was both "curly " and " frizzy." 
 
 Closing Speech for the Prosecution. 
 
 The ATTORXBY- GENERAL said The defences of the prisoners the Attorney- 
 have been presented to you by their respective counsel, and it General 
 now becomes my duty to reply to the arguments and evidence 
 they have adduced. In the course of that reply it will be 
 necessary for me more or less to comment on the more salient 
 points of the evidence produced both by the prosecution and 
 for the defence. It will be my desire in these comments not 
 to lose sight of the momentous issues involved, not to forget 
 the feelings of the advocate in an earnest desire to sift the 
 evidence as completely as I can, and to aid you in discovering 
 the truth. I will deal with the facts in the order in which they 
 have been presented to you from the beginning. And first 
 as to the case of Henry Wainwright. His counsel (Mr. Besley), 
 in the course of his, in many respects, most able speech, has 
 presented to you a digest of the evidence, and commented upon 
 it very fully, and set before you the defence he makes for his 
 client, and I propose, at the outset, to take a general view 
 of what that defence is. He says that the evidence for the 
 prosecution is incomplete and unsatisfactory not sufficient to 
 convince your minds that guilt lies at the door of the prisoner 
 he represents. The learned counsel then went on to say there 
 is not sufficient evidence to establish that the body found was 
 that of Harriet Lane. He says no doubt a body was found on 
 the premises of Henry Wainwrijrht, with which he was dealing 
 on llth September, 1875, under circumstances of grave sus- 
 picion, which no doubt called for some explanation on the part 
 
 181
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 The Attorney- of Wainwright, and the explanation he gives is simply that it 
 was not the body of Harriet Lane, but that it might be that 
 of some woman who had received injury at the hands of Wain- 
 wright, and who committed suicide on these premises, Wain- 
 wright being induced by the horror of the moment to conceal 
 the body lest, if it were discovered on his premises, he might 
 have a charge made against him which it would be difficult 
 to meet. But, on the assumption that the body is that of 
 Harriet Lane, he has given no explanation whatever of the 
 conduct of this man. He has a right to say, if he thinks so, 
 that the evidence is not conclusive enough to bring home 
 guilt to the prisoner, but on the assumption that the body is 
 that of Harriet Lane, there is no explanation and no theory 
 to account for the inference you are invited to draw from the 
 facts presented to your notice. On the other hand, supposing 
 that it is not the body of Harriet Lane, the theory on which 
 he desires you to act upon is that the unfortunate woman, 
 whoever she may have been, met with her death by her own 
 hand, and that Henry Wainwright, under the influence of fear, 
 buried the body in those premises. 
 
 Just consider for a moment whether this theory can be 
 tenable. You have the evidence before you of the injury 
 found to have been inflicted upon the body. It is perfectly 
 true that there was a cut in the throat sufficient to destroy life 
 almost instantaneously, for that cut severed the windpipe and 
 all the structures to the vertebrae, and she had two bullets in 
 her head, and a third was lodged in the hair pad. Can you 
 imagine all those injuries to have been inflicted by her own 
 hand? Suppose the cut in the throat was inflicted during life, 
 how would it be possible for her afterwards to discharge these 
 three bullets with such deadly and certain aim? Reverse the 
 case, and suppose the bullets were first discharged, how was 
 it possible for the woman afterwards to inflict the wound in 
 her throat? My learned friend contends that the wound in 
 the throat was not inflicted till after death, but no one has 
 advanced any reason why it should be so inflicted, and there 
 is no evidence of any motive for inflicting it after death. 
 
 What have we, then? Why, there is this cut in the throat, 
 and we have it clearly proved that there were two wounds 
 made by a pistol one behind the ear and another before the 
 ear, made by bullets which had entered and lodged in the 
 woman's brain. In addition to that, you have it that there 
 was a third bullet, which had lodged in the pad, stopped by the 
 mass of hairpins. How would it be possible for a woman who 
 attempted to commit suicide first to discharge a shot into the 
 
 182
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 back of the pad? Could you, gentlemen, do you think, dis- The Attorney- 
 charge a pistol into the back of your neck, and, if it could be Genepal 
 done, do you think any one would do it? That is not the 
 way a woman who wished to destroy herself by a pistol, 
 mind you would commit suicide. She would, you may be 
 sure, discharge it into her forehead, her mouth, or her heart, 
 or any part of the body that she could reach with facility, and 
 it is idle to suggest that she would commence at the back 
 of her head. But if she did not so commence, the absurdity 
 becomes greater, for, having two bullets lodged in the brain, 
 she must have then performed the difficult I was about to 
 suggest impossible act of discharging the third at the back 
 of her head. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is no proof that the shot 
 which lodged behind was fired first, and, of course, it would be 
 physically impossible after two bullets were lodged in the brain, 
 though, of course, it is possible that a person might fire a shot 
 which did not take effect, and then follow it up by another. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Precisely so, my lord. Well, 
 gentlemen, I put it to you is it physically possible? Try 
 yourselves to turn the muzzle of a revolver to the back of your 
 own heads where that bullet lodged in the pad. If it could 
 be done, is it likely it would be done by a woman ? It is the 
 last thing which would occur to her mind. But even if she 
 had done so in this case, and the bullet was arrested in the 
 pad, it must have come with such fearful force against the back 
 of her head as to stun her instantly, and do you think she could 
 then discharge two shots into the brain. Or, taking the 
 reverse case, do you think she not only lodged one bullet in 
 her brain, but followed it up with a second before firing the 
 one which lodged in her pad? Really, gentlemen, you must 
 deal with the facts of this case as you would deal with any 
 other case by looking upon it with the eye of reason, and I 
 will not insult your reason and outrage your common sense by 
 asking you to assume that the woman committed suicide. If 
 she did not, then at the very threshold this difficulty stares 
 Henry Wainwright in the face. 
 
 There is a woman buried at 215 Whitechapel Road, under 
 the floor of the paint room; on llth September, 1875, he is 
 dealing with the remains ; can any one doubt from the evidence 
 that his hand severed the remains into a number of pieces! On 
 the llth he is taking them to the Hen and Chickens; he is 
 arrested; he is found in possession of the mutilated remains of 
 a woman who has met with her death by foul play, and it is 
 
 183
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 The Attorney- incumbent on him under these circumstances to give you some 
 explanation, but explanation there is none. If you disregard 
 the theory of suicide, what explanation does Henry Wainwright 
 give you of the possession? What, I submit to you, gentlemen 
 of the jury, is that? If it was not suicide, it was murder, and 
 no explanation is given by my learned friend who defends Henry 
 Wainwright. The only defence my learned friend relies on is 
 that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is unsatisfactory. 
 What does my learned friend say to shoAv that the evidence is 
 not satisfactory? After comments, in which I thoroughly 
 agree, on the unenviable task we have all to perform in this 
 matter, and after commenting upon the nature of the surgical 
 evidence in the case, my learned friend complains that the 
 prosecution have offered no evidence with regard to the early 
 intimacy or the commencement of the intimacy between Henry 
 Wainwright and Harriet Lane. He seemed to think I had 
 promised to trace her from Waltham Abbey, and to give evidence 
 of her life up to the time she left Mrs. Foster's, in Sidney 
 Square, on llth September, 1874. I don't remember making 
 any such statement. I said I should sho\v she was the daughter 
 of John Lane, and had been educated and in business there, 
 and had left to come to London some time in 1872 ; that she 
 had formed a connection with Henry Wainwright, and was his 
 mistress. It was not reasonable to expect the prosecution to 
 show more than that; and if we had, what advantage would 
 have resulted from it? That in 1872 this unhappy woman was 
 the mistress of Henry Wainwright no one can doubt, for we 
 have him obtaining lodgings for her, acknowledging her, keep- 
 ing her children as his, and at the places where she was living 
 it is assumed that Henry Wainwright, who passed under the 
 assumed name of Percy King, was her husband. It would be 
 a waste of time, therefore, to go into the origin of the acquaint- 
 ance which left Harriet Lane, in 1872, the mistress of Henry 
 Wainwright in London, living in 1873 with Mrs. Wells, and 
 in 1874 with Mrs. Foster, from whose lodgings she departed 
 on llth September, from which time she was never again heard 
 of alive. 
 
 Then my friend deals with the evidence with respect to Henry 
 Wainwright being in embarrassed circumstances. I advanced 
 on the part of the prosecution that in the middle of 1874 
 Wainwright was in embarrassed circumstances, that he was short 
 of money, that he had the greatest difficulty in supplying Mrs. 
 King with the money he was in the habit of giving her ; that 
 he had expenses, it is clear, for he had a wife and family of 
 
 184
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 four or five children living at Tredegar Square. It is clear that Th Attorney- 
 
 in January, 1874, there was a proceeding instituted by Sawyer General 
 
 to obtain a dissolution of partnership, and about the same date 
 
 there was a petition of Henry Wainwright for the liquidation 
 
 of his affairs. At a meeting of his creditors it was resolved 
 
 that a dividend of 12s. in the pound should be received 6s. 
 
 within a few days after the meeting, 3s. at the end of three 
 
 months, and 3s. at the end of six months. The first and second 
 
 instalments were paid, and the third is not paid, so that it is 
 
 clear that at that time he Avas obliged to compound with his 
 
 creditors to get them to agree to a dividend of 12s. in the 
 
 pound, the third instalment of which he was unable to meet. 
 
 The evidence does not stop there, for we have the fact that 
 
 he himself, about July, 1874, was asking his manager, Rogers, 
 
 to dispose of a revolver. This may have been a trifling subject, 
 
 but if he had to resort to that means for the purpose of raising 
 
 money, it is obvious that he was in an embarrassed condition. 
 
 At an earlier date we have Mrs. King, whom he had undertaken 
 
 to support, also disposing of her things. If she could have got 
 
 money from Henry Wainwright it would not have been necessary 
 
 for her to dispose of her things. But the fact of her 
 
 doing so at that time must convince you that Wainwright 
 
 was short of money. I do not think with regard to this part 
 
 of the case the comments which my learned friend thought 
 
 proper to make will have any great weight with you. 
 
 I now come to another matter to which my learned friend 
 referred the evidence relating to Frieake. My learned friend 
 said he could not understand why Henry Wainwright should 
 have introduced any one to Harriet Lane under the name of 
 Frieake. If the person whom he did so introduce was not 
 Frieake, what object, says my learned friend, would there be 
 in selecting such an uncommon name as Frieake? Why not 
 select some other name? May not this have been the solution t 
 Edward Frieake, the auctioneer of Coleman Street, was a friend 
 of Henry Wainwright's, and had been for some years. Per- 
 sonally, he was not known to Mrs. King, but it may be, and 
 indeed it is highly probable, that in the course of conversation 
 with Mrs. King, many references may have been made to Edward 
 Frieake, and the friendship that existed may have been described. 
 Therefore, if it was necessary for any purpose to introduce any 
 one to Mrs. King, nothing would be so natural as that the name 
 of this Mr. Frieake, who was known by her to be the friend of 
 Henry Wainwright, should be selected as the person to be 
 represented. But whether it is natural or not, whether it is 
 
 185
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 The Attorney- probable that he would do eo or not, it is clear that Frieake's 
 General name was selected, and that some one was introduced to Mrs. 
 
 King as Frieake. 
 
 The Attorney-General went on to show that the suggestion 
 made by the prisoner's counsel that the person introduced 
 was a real Mr. Frieake, who ultimately succeeded in estranging 
 the affections of Mrs. King from Henry Wainwright was 
 untenable, and that the terms of the letter written by Mrs. 
 King beginning "My dear Mr. Frieake," and apologising for 
 rude behaviour, were not such as would be written by a woman 
 to a man between whom and herself there existed an undue 
 familiarity, and with whom she was about to go away. Then, 
 he continued, there is the letter from Henry Wainwright him- 
 self, to which I shall have occasion again to refer. It is dated 
 5th September, which, you will remember, is shortly before the 
 llth. He writes thus to Mrs. King, " Dear Pet, E. F. is 
 going down at seven to-night. He will give you a call with a 
 message," &c. This friend " E. F." must have been a person 
 in whom Henry Wainwright had the most perfect confidence. 
 Assuming he was not Thomas Wainwright, what happens? We 
 have the fact that Mrs. King leaves her abode in Sidney Square 
 a little after four o'clock on llth September. 'According to 
 Henry Wainwright's statement, she finds her way to 215 White- 
 chapel Road, and is never more seen afterwards. It is suggested 
 she has gone away with Frieake, this man who has been carry- 
 ing messages between the two. The fact that she found her way 
 to this place on the day named is substantiated by the evidence 
 of Mrs. Taylor, who, when she questioned Henry Wainwright 
 about the absence of her sister, got the reply that on llth 
 September she left Sidney Square and came to Whitechapel 
 Road. She had then gone with Frieake to the theatre, for he 
 had stayed in the shop until ten o'clock at night, expecting their 
 return ; but they did not come back consequently he concluded 
 that they must have gone off together to Brighton. It may 
 be that the whole is a fabrication, or that the part of the storv 
 which states that Mrs. King came down to these premises on 
 that afternoon is as false as the rest of it. Supposing she did 
 not come down, we at all events find this that the body of a 
 woman was afterwards discovered buried there; that Harriet 
 Lane from that time till this has never been heard of by any 
 of her friends or relatives, and is supposed to have gone off 
 with one named Frieake. 
 
 ^ You will remember that Harriet Lane was the mother of two 
 children, borne by her to the man whom she must have once
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 loved. These children she was exceedingly fond of. She was The Attorney- 
 the daughter of a man who had not ceased to respect and regard G< 
 her. Whatever her faults or errors may have been, she was 
 always treated with kindness by the members of her family. 
 She was a well-educated woman. She had all these ties to bind 
 her to those she loved at Waltham. Is it then credible or con- 
 ceivable that a woman of this kind would leave her home, all 
 those who were dear to her, to go away with a man who must 
 have been almost an absolute stranger to her? Would she 
 even if she did this never make any communication to those 
 who were left behind? Would she not have made some com- 
 munication to those in charge of her children? A woman does 
 not act in the way the gentlemen on the other side would have 
 us believe. None of you can possibly conceive that this woman 
 would have been silent so long as this had she gone with a 
 person named Frieake to Dover or Paris, or anywhere else. 
 
 If Frieake was not Thomas Wainwright and I am now 
 assuming he was not who was he? One would suppose that 
 if he was intimate enough with Henry Wainwright to be sent 
 by him to carry messages to a woman who was living as Henry 
 Wainwright's wife, and was intimate enough to make arrange- 
 ments about furniture, to be alluded to in a letter written by 
 Henry Wainwright to Mrs. King, to be allowed to convey Mrs. 
 King to the theatre then Henry Wainwright knows something 
 about him. What has he ever told anybody who has had any- 
 thing to do with reference to this case about this Mr. Frieake? 
 That he is not Mr. Frieake of Coleman Street is as clear as the 
 sun at noonday. Then who is he? What description has the 
 prisoner given of him? He said he was a man who used to go 
 to Purcell's which I take to be some tavern or to the Phil- 
 harmonic, or the Nell Gwynn. If there be a Mr. Frieake, is 
 that all the information he can offer about him? It would be 
 idle to suppose that, being on the terms of intimacy which you 
 may infer from the evidence in this case, he can give no 
 further or better account of him than this. Mr. Besley struggled 
 hard to satisfy you and his observations were of the greatest 
 importance that Frieake and Thomas Wainwright were not 
 identical, and my friend Mr. Moody, to whose case this was 
 specially referred, has endeavoured to do the same thing in a 
 speech of the greatest ability. This is a matter of the greatest 
 moment, not only to the case of Henry, but to the case of 
 Thomas. If Thomas Wainwright and Mr. Frieake are identical, 
 what a story does it tell ! Then you have three Mr. Frieakes 
 to account for. If Thomas Wainwright was the Mr. Frieake 
 
 187
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- who was calling at the lodgings of Mrs. Foster, then you have 
 General the Mr p r ieake of Coleman Street, and another Mr. Frieake, 
 
 who, it is suggested, appeared on the scene at the very nick 
 of time when his presence was required, and about whose history 
 we are entirely ignorant. Therefore it is of vital importance 
 for the counsel for Henry to establish, if he can, that Thomas 
 was not identical with this Mr. Frieake, as much so as for the 
 counsel for Thomas to establish the same fact. 
 
 What evidence have we on the subject of the identity of 
 Thomas Wainwright with this Mr. Frieake, who was passed off 
 as such to Mrs. King? You have that of Miss Wilmore, Mrs. 
 Foster, and Mrs. Stanley. I pass by the evidence of Mrs. Wells, 
 because I agree to a great extent with what fell from my 
 learned friend, that there has been no testimony given by her 
 which should induce you to suppose that the man who was 
 called Edward was the same person. We have no means of 
 knowing who he was. The event to which she speaks happened 
 so long ago that we have no reason to believe that a scheme 
 was then on foot which would render it necessary for any one 
 to personate Mr. Frieake. As the story progresses, and when 
 we come to August and September, we have it clearly proved 
 that somebody or other was having interviews with Mrs. King 
 at the lodgings where she then resided, who represented him- 
 self to be Frieake. Who was that ? I submit to you that this 
 point is conclusively proved by Harriet Lane's own letter to 
 Mr. Frieake of Coleman Street. She must have understood 
 that there was a Mr. Frieake coming to see her, and that he 
 was of Coleman Street, because she addressed the letter to him 
 at that place and in that name. That he came not very often, 
 but on several occasions, is deposed to by Miss Wilmore and 
 Mrs. Foster; and Mrs. Stanley speaks to one occasion. But it 
 is true that Miss Wilmore and Mrs. Foster have not identified 
 the man with absolute certainty. They say, " To the best of 
 our belief and knowledge he was Thomas Wainwright. He did 
 not present the appearance Thomas Wainwright now presents. 
 He had no whiskers " ; and they describe his moustache some 
 as light and others as a slight one. Their descriptions might 
 not be accurate, and if they stood alone I should not ask you 
 to rely upon them; but their testimony does not stand alone, 
 and I will now refer you to the evidence upon which I rely to 
 establish the identity of Thomas Wainwright with Edward 
 Frieake, and that is the testimony of Mrs. Foster, the landlady 
 of the house where Mrs. King lived. She speaks of two or three 
 occasions when Frieake came to her house. She believes that 
 188
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 the first occasion was towards the end of August or the beginning The Attorney- 
 of September, 1874. She further states that upon one or two G< 
 occasions the man who came brought with him a bottle of 
 champagne, and that upon one occasion, when he came to see 
 Mrs. King, she was obliged to go to a public-house on the 
 opposite side of the way for the purpose of borrowing three 
 champagne glasses. Now, this is a thing which she would be 
 likely to remember, and probably as champagne was a wine 
 which she seldom or never tasted, she got three champagne 
 glasses with the idea that she would be asked to have some. 
 Well, the champagne was in due time consumed, and she remem- 
 bers the empty champagne bottle next morning. That is a bit 
 of evidence of a striking character. As to the identity, she only 
 swears that the man was Thomas Wainwright to the best of her 
 belief. But the prosecution have called Mr. Humphries, the 
 landlord of the Princess Royal, the house in question, and he 
 told you that he remembered the two brothers, Thomas and 
 Henry Wainwright, perfectly well; that he had known them 
 for years, and that he recollects them being in his house on one 
 occasion for some time; that during that time they smoked a 
 couple of cigars and drank some soda water and brandy. He 
 further remembers that after they had been there some time 
 Thomas ordered a bottle of champagne, carried it away with 
 him, and shortly afterwards Mrs. Foster or some one else came 
 to his house and borrowed three champagne glasses. Now, if 
 he really does recollect that circumstance, it was the same cir- 
 cumstance as spoken to by Mrs. Foster. Does not this lead 
 irresistibly to the conclusion that the man who took the bottle 
 of champagne over to Mrs. Foster's was Thomas Wainwright? 
 And if he was, it is as clear as anything possibly can be that 
 the man who represented himself to be Frieake was Thomas 
 Wainwright. 
 
 The date of that occurrence, according to Mr. Humphries, 
 who spoke from an entry in his diary, was 5th September, 
 1874. Now, you have had evidence brought before you that 
 Thomas Wainwright was in the employment of Mr. Arkell, an 
 ironmonger of Oxford Street, and his time during the period 
 he was there has been endeavoured to be accounted for. But 
 on 5th September he was not there all day. If you refer to 
 the " sales sheet," which was produced, you will find that, 
 whilst there were many sales effected by the three other counter- 
 men on that day, scarcely any article was sold by Thomas 
 Wainwright. Again, 5th September of last year fell on a 
 Saturday, and on that day the shop of Mr. Arkell is closed at
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- five o'clock, instead of eight o'clock, the usual hour on other 
 General days. But there is more than that. We find on this very 5th 
 
 September as follows: "Dear Pet, E. F. is coming down at 
 seven to-night. He will give you a call with a message from 
 me," on that very day, the 5th of September. Now, if Thomas 
 Wainwright was being passed off to Mrs. King as Frieake, he 
 must have had some purpose to serve. It is not for me to say 
 what. It may be that he was intended to satisfy her that he 
 was about to take her to some residence, and that he was to 
 provide the furniture for it, or a hundred other reasons may 
 have been suggested to her mind to account for his visits. You 
 now have the whole of the incidents which I have narrated 
 before you, and I say that they all point to the same conclusion, 
 and I ask, upon that evidence, can you have such doubts as 
 any reasonable man would entertain that the man who found 
 his way there was Thomas Wainwright? Everything concurs 
 to show that he was. 
 
 Referring to the evidence given by Mr. Humphries, which 
 the counsel for the prisoners contended was inaccurate, I am of 
 opinion that, so far as regarded his statement that the disturb- 
 ance in the street took place on 5th September, his evidence 
 was inaccurate. But with regard to the champagne glasses 
 and Thomas Wainwright taking the champagne, it did not 
 depend on the evidence of Mr. Humphries alone. You have 
 had that evidence corroborated, and corroborated in the most 
 singular and extraordinary manner, by the evidence of Mrs. 
 Foster. That he might have heard a disturbance was clear, 
 but not on that day. That a disturbance did take place was 
 pretty certain, for Mrs. Foster and Miss Wilmore spoke to 
 it, and, I believe, also Mrs. Stanley. In Harriet Lane's letter 
 to Mr. Frieake I do not say that the disturbance is alluded 
 to, and I don't say that the circumstance referred to in the letter 
 was that disturbance, but it may have been. You have a letter 
 which is dated Sunday night. You know that on Saturday 
 Thomas would not be required at his shop in Oxford Street, 
 and he would be able to be there. The letter says, " I trust 
 you will pardon me writing to you, but I feel that I ought to 
 apologise to you for my rude behaviour last night to you." 
 She proceeds to say she had been very much worried and excited, 
 and that that must account for her conduct. Thomas might 
 have been there on the Saturday, and the only thing is that 
 if you assume that the notice to quit was given on the Saturday, 
 then you would not have the dates tallying; but if you were 
 to assume that the notice to quit was given on the Sunday or 
 Monday that was, a notice to commence on the Wednesday 
 
 190
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 that would make it come to 9th September, and the two days The Attorney- 
 which were given extra would bring it to the llth. The dis- Genera 
 turbance is spoken to, and as far as the evidence of Mr. Hum- 
 phries was concerned, he cannot be accurate when he says it 
 took place on the 5th. You must bear in mind the circum- 
 stance of the champagne glasses, and you must satisfy yourselves 
 that he is the man. 
 
 My learned friend has endeavoured to show that it has not 
 been made out that the chloride of lime was bought on the 
 I Oth, or that it was bought by Henry Wainwright. The date 
 of the purchase is, however, fixed by Mr. Baylis's books, and, 
 according to Rogers and Mrs. Rogers, the lime found its way 
 into No. 84 on the afternoon or evening of the 10th, the date 
 being fixed by Mrs. Rogers by the fact that on the morning of 
 the llth she was delivered of a child. 
 
 I now deal with the pistol shots, the evidence with regard to 
 which has been subjected to such severe comment by my 
 learned friend. Now, I. do not know that it is important 
 whether the men who heard these pistol shots, or said they heard 
 them, really did hear them or not, because it is obvious that 
 later on, or before, or at that time, a woman died who met 
 her death by two or three pistol shots, and that they were fired 
 in rapid succession. I am not going to ask you to place reliance 
 on this evidence, if it does not deserve to be relied on. The 
 men themselves who deposed to this matter were of good char- 
 acter, and by their demeanour in the witness-box would impress 
 you with the belief that they wished to tell the truth. But, 
 on the other hand, there ia a good deal to be said against their 
 evidence, because they said afterwards they remembered three 
 pistol shots fired in rapid succession between the hours of five 
 and seven in the evening, apparently coming from the direction 
 of Henry Wainwright' s premises. They say the date of those 
 shots was llth September, although the figures in the memo- 
 randum made by one of them on the completion of certain 
 repairs to a large van of Mr. Martin's looked more like 9 than 
 11. Then the books showed that Mr. Martin had actually 
 paid a sum of money to Mr. Wiseman on 4th September, and 
 another on the 9th, which together made up the amount of the 
 bill for the little van and the large van. Well, it may be that 
 he paid for the large van before the amount was due, but I 
 don't know whether that ia very probable. I should think it 
 rather probable he would not pay until the van had been 
 delivered, and, if so, the testimony of Mr. Wiseman goes to 
 corroborate the testimony of Mr. Martin, and goes to corroborate 
 the evidence of Mrs. Trew. 
 
 191
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- Taking these matters into consideration, and the fact that 
 General these men said at first they had not heard shots, I do not on 
 
 the part of the prosecution ask you to receive their testimony 
 without doubt, or rely implicitly upon it, although it is due 
 to them to say that I believe they came into the box to tell you 
 a truthful story. But exclude their evidence altogether. What, 
 then? It would be the absence, not of an indispensable link 
 in the chain, but of an additional one. The shots were fired, 
 and in rapid succession, into the head of this woman, and I 
 ask you whether in all probability they were not fired on llth 
 September? If not, when were they fired? Where was this 
 woman on the 1 1th of September ? It was said that Wainwright 
 gave her 15 to pay her debts, and 10 more for an outfit 
 to go to Brighton. Where is the evidence of that outfit having 
 been purchased? And if she were not killed that night, how 
 was it no one has heard of her? But, again, if that body is not 
 that of Harriet Lane, she is in all probability alive now. She is 
 said to have gone away with Frieake to the Continent, but they 
 must have heard all the circumstances under which these men 
 are now being tried for their lives, and she at least must have 
 known that one word from her would clear one whom she once 
 loved, and loved most tenderly, from peril. There, however, 
 is the body found, and if that body is Harriet Lane's, she must 
 have been shot down that night, about the period spoken to. 
 There is no evidence, at any rate, to show where she is. I 
 say, therefore, discard the evidence, if you will, of the men 
 hearing the shots fired, and the case remains as strong as 
 before, for you cannot doubt that it is the body of Harriet 
 Lane, and that she met her death by means of the three 
 chambers of a revolver being fired into her head on llth 
 September. 
 
 Then the next matters to which I will draw your attention 
 are the statements of Henry Wainwright to Miss Wilmore, to 
 Mrs. Taylor, to Fowler (or Eeles), and to Lane, and my learned 
 friend says they are not proved to be false. 
 
 The letter to Miss Wilmore has been proved to be in the 
 handwriting of Thomas Wainwright from the Charing Cross 
 Hotel, and in it, under the signature of " T. Frieake," he 
 said, "We are just off to Dover," and that they were to be 
 married in a few weeks. Is that letter false or is it not? Is 
 it not written to put people off the scent at the instigation 
 of Henry Wainwright by saying, " We are just off to Dover "? 
 Assume for the moment that the suggestion made had any 
 foundation in truth that Frieake had taken her to France. 
 Why should the prisoner have made ail these excuses and 
 192
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 explanations? If she had deserted him for a wealthier man, The Attorney- 
 
 and left her children on his hands, he could not have been to General 
 
 blame. Her connection with him was known to her friends, 
 
 and Avhy need he have resorted to these suspicious excuses? 
 
 All he had to do was to tell the simple truth, but instead of 
 
 that he gets his brother to write this letter, and a more astute 
 
 or cunning letter could not have been devised to put inquirers 
 
 off the scent and pacify her friends, and to induce them to be 
 
 quiet, as, if they were quiet, Frieake promised to marry her. 
 
 There were also the verbal statements of Miss Wilmore and 
 
 Taylor, that when shown this letter by them Henry Wainwright 
 
 went to his desk and produced another which he said he had 
 
 received, and which was to the same purpose. 
 
 But the thing does not stop there, for shortly afterwards 
 three telegrams were received. The letter to which I have just 
 referred paves the way by saying, " We are just off Dover," 
 and these telegrams come from Dover Pier telegraph office, and 
 state, " We are just off to Paris, and intend to have a jolly 
 spree." Who sent those telegrams? Was it Frieake, or was 
 it not rather the man who dictated or wrote that letter? We 
 Gave the fact of these three telegrams from Dover one to Miss 
 Wilmore, one to Henry Wainwright, Whitechapel Road, and 
 the third found its way into the district where Parson's Green 
 is situated. Then, again, those telegrams what tale do they 
 tell ? When Miss 1 Wilmore gets hers, she finds her way to Henry 
 Wainwright, and he reads to her another, which he says he has 
 just received, which says, " We are just off to Paris, and 
 intend to have a jolly spree." Now, I ask you, was that not a 
 contrivance to follow up the Charing Cross letter, to satisfy 
 the friends of Harriet Lane and put them off the scent? Then, 
 again, he makes further excuses. He says the woman has been 
 seen by his foreman and by one of his porters. But was that 
 true? We have had the foreman, Rogers, and he tells you he 
 never saw the woman. There is nothing to prevent Henry 
 Wainwright, if the statement is true, calling that workman or 
 porter himself. Then, again, it is pretended that Miss Wilmore 
 saw Mrs. King, and she says herself she did believe she had 
 seen her. But was it not probable that she would entertain 
 such belief? Her mind had been so prepared for it by the 
 statements of Henry Wainwright himself, that when she saw 
 that woman driving in a hansom cab. with a gentleman by her 
 side, near the Bank of England, with hair somewhat of the 
 same colour, she rushes to the conclusion that it is Harriet Lane. 
 But because she supposes that it was Harriet Lane, are you 
 to jump to the conclusion that it was? 
 
 o 193
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- My learned friend then deals with Mr. Rogers, and he aska 
 General y OU ^ Discredit his testimony, because he says it is untrue; 
 
 that it is untrue, because he never mentioned to the coroner, 
 to the magistrate, or afterwards to the prosecution the statement 
 he made to my lord when asked as to the contents of the letter 
 which was handed to him by Henry Wainwright to take to his 
 wife at Tredegar Square. But do you think he is not to be 
 believed for that reason? Rogers is a man who had been in 
 the service of Henry Wainwright, and for years he had been 
 treated with the greatest possible kindness. Do you think it 
 possible, having been so treated, that Rogers should be anxious 
 to state anything damning to the character of his old employer ? 
 You recollect the circumstances of Mrs. King being at No. 84 
 in a fainting fit, for that was spoken to by Mrs. Rogers. 
 Rogers was asked about the same affair. He says, "Yes, I 
 remember being called down to the shop and seeing Henry 
 Wainwright and Mrs. King there together." He does not 
 recollect the cries of " Don't ! "don't," but he comes down and 
 sees Mrs. King in a state of excitement, and Henry Wainwright 
 gives him a letter to take to Tredegar Square. Mrs. King 
 snatches the letter and tears it open, but still Rogers gets away 
 with it into the street. He says, " Then I was prompted to 
 look at it, and I saw such nonsense that I did not take it, and 
 I told Henry Wainwright afterwards that I had not taken it." 
 He was asked afterwards what were the contents. If he had 
 been anxious to strain matters against Henry Wainwright, would 
 he have said what he did? If he were not the witness of truth 
 he would have given some statement with regard to the contents 
 of that letter which would have borne more seriously against 
 the man to whom his testimony was directed. His story was, 
 ' ' I cannot survive the disgrace . . . you will never see me 
 any more." Disgrace about what? Not a word about Mrs. 
 King. I submit to you that when Rogers told you that he was 
 telling you the truth. 
 
 My learned friend next dealt with the period between 1874 
 and September of this year, and on that he only makes one 
 remark, and that is with reference to the evidence of the 
 witness Johnson, who was on the committee of inspection of the 
 bankruptcy affairs of Henry Wainwright. He says Johnson's 
 evidence was a mere nothing. But is my learned friend correct 
 in saying that Johnson's testimony is wholly valueless? You 
 will remember that in November he was engaged in repairing 
 No. 215, and, amongst other things, he " stippled " the window 
 of the warehouse at the back, which was commanded by the 
 194
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 back window of the house, and especially by the kitchen window. The Attorney- 
 
 Perhaps Henry Wainwright had good reason for "stippling" 
 
 the window in November, 1874. Who can tell? The theory 
 
 of the prosecution is that in the paint room at the end of the 
 
 premises there was this dreadful secret a woman lying buried, 
 
 whose body it was necessary for Henry Wainwright to get rid of. 
 
 Would it do, then, for him to have that paint room and the 
 
 door of the paint room commanded by the eyes of any one 
 
 looking from the kitchen window? 
 
 The LORD CiiiEF JUSTICE It occurs to me that, as long as 
 there were people in the house, he would not have cut through 
 the joists, on account of the noise it would make. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My theory is that the joists were 
 cut through long before, my lord. We have this fact, that the 
 window was ' ' stippled ' ' by the instructions of Henry Wain- 
 Bright, but I did not call Johnson to prove that. I called him 
 because his name was mentioned by Henry Wainwright, who, 
 in speaking to Stokes at the time of the removal of the remains, 
 said, " I wonder whether old Johnson is on the look-out." 
 
 Next we come to my learned friend's remarks about what 
 happened on llth September. On the 10th preparations had 
 been made for the removal of the body. The cloth, the cord, 
 the chopper, the hand-spade, had been bought, and it is clear that 
 some conversation took place between Stokes and Henry Wain- 
 wright, who was contemplating how he should dispose of these 
 implements after he had done with them. On the llth there 
 is no doubt that he and Stokes were together, that 
 Stokes carried away the parcels, and that Henry Wain- 
 wright and Alice Day found their way with them 
 to the Hen and Chickens. It has been said, " If Henry 
 Wainwright was conscious of guilt, why did he employ Stokes? 
 and, if Thomas Wainwright was implicated, why did he not 
 do what Stokes did? " Henry Wainwright might well have 
 supposed if he or his brother were seen carrying the parcels 
 away a suspicion would attach to them which would not attach 
 to the man who was employed by Mr. Martin if he was seen 
 doing it. Is it not reasonable that persons engaged in wicked 
 transactions should make a mistake ? It was a grievous mistake 
 he made, for if he had not allowed Stokes to remain while 
 he went for the cab he might have got the body safely to ite 
 destination. Then it is said, if he was conscious of guilt, why 
 did he take up with Alice Day? But might not even that be 
 for the purpose of averting suspicion? Here is a man in pos- 
 session of the mutilated remains of a murdered woman, a man 
 
 195
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 The Attorney- who, when he is arrested, said to the police officers, "Say 
 General nothing, and here is 50 each for you " ; and again, when the 
 
 parcels are about to be opened, he says, " Don't toucn it, for 
 God's sake, and I will make it 200." Is not that the conduct 
 of a man conscious of guilt? A man goes to the police station, 
 and, after having had plenty of time for consideration, says 
 that some gentleman whom he had met in a public-house had 
 offered him 3 to carry the parcels to the Borough. Is a man 
 who gives such an explanation to the police officer a man who 
 is not conscious of guilt? 
 
 Then my friend comes to the identity of the body, and upon 
 thia part of the case he lays the greatest possible stress. We 
 say, on the part of the prosecution, that this woman was 
 Harriet Lane, and we say that for a variety of reasons many 
 of which my friend has endeavoured to scout we say that that 
 was Harriet Lane, because she was a woman about twenty-four 
 years of age, that her height was 5 feet or thereabouts, that 
 her. build was slight, and her hands and feet were small, that 
 she had light hair, that she had one decayed tooth (only one), 
 and that in a peculiar position, that she had a scar on the right 
 leg, and that, besides these distinctive marks on the body, she 
 was a woman who might have borne children. She had a 
 wedding ring and keeper, was dressed in a dress trimmed with 
 large jet buttons, and similar buttons were found where the 
 woman was found; she had also a hair pad made in a peculiar 
 way, to which she attached her hair by means of a great quan- 
 tity of hairpins, and to which was attached a piece of ribbon 
 velvet. Now, all those distinctive features were to be found 
 in Harriet Lane, and they are all, with one exception, to be found 
 on the dead woman. My friend says, taken individually, they 
 are not matters to which you would attach much importance. 
 Perhaps not; but put them together, and do you expect to find 
 in two women an exact correspondence in all these things/ It 
 is said that Harriet Lane was a little taller than Mrs. Allen, 
 her sister, but the photograph which will be placed before you 
 will enable you to judge of the difference. The height of Mrs. 
 Allen was 5 feet and one-eighth of an inch, and the dead woman, 
 after the parts had been put together, measured only a little 
 less. I have drawn your attention to the way in which that 
 difference may be accounted for. We have had before you 
 surgeons of eminence Dr. Bond and Mr. Larkin for the prose- 
 cution, who say that after death has taken place for some con- 
 siderable time the cartilages which intervene between the bones 
 will shrink. 
 196
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I don't think either of the 
 surgeons, on examination and cross-examination, was asked 
 whether bones would shrink. I am not sufficiently familiar 
 with the subject to be able to form an opinion. Mr. Besley, 
 with some cogency, made that the foundation of his argument. 
 
 The ATTORNEY -GENERAL In life the bones are not close The Attorney- 
 together. A cartilage intervenes, and those are the subjects General 
 that shrink. Mr. Larkin and Mr. Bond gave this opinion, 
 which Dr. Meadows and Mr. Aubyn did not venture to contra- 
 dict. Then you must consider whether these bones or limbs 
 could be placed exactly in the same position as in life after 
 they had been hacked and severed in the most unscientific way. 
 With reference to the slight make, there is no question about 
 that. The hair is described as light auburn, with a golden tinge 
 about it. Some witnesses, I am informed, said it was " frizzy." 
 By looking at the photograph of Harriet Lane your attention 
 may be directed to the manner in which, at the time it was 
 taken, she wore her hair over a pad. This may lead you to 
 the conclusion that it was wavy, or, if you like, " frizzy." The 
 hair was said to have been bleached by the chloride of lime. 
 But no one will say that this agent destroys entirely the colour 
 of hair, or that in this instance the entire quantity of hair was 
 impregnated with it. Taken from the grave, it presented a 
 solid, dull appearance, but when washed it showed a lighter 
 aspect, such as it has. 
 
 The Attorney-General then alluded to the decayed tooth, 
 and, coming to the evidence that the body found was that of a 
 woman who had borne children, said he would not ask them to 
 place too much importance on the statement, but there was 
 this fact, that the woman, like Harriet Lane, had a wedding 
 ring and a keeper on her finger, so that, although she was not 
 married, she passed as a married woman. 
 
 He next alluded to the scar on the leg, which Mr. Aubyn 
 could not deny was found on the place described. That gentle- 
 man had said he found a scar on the other leg, but on being 
 further questioned, he would not swear whether it was a mark 
 caused by decomposition. And how was it found 1 By candle- 
 light on the day just before the woman was placed in the grave. 
 This witness fixed the age of the deceased between twenty-five 
 and thirty years, but he got into such confusion with regard 
 to his reasons for fixing the limit at twenty-five that he (the 
 Attorney-General) did not think they would attach much im- 
 portance to his evidence in regard to the body which he 
 examined. His friend said that, although the wedding ring and 
 keeper were found, yet no furrow on the finger of the dead 
 
 197
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- woman could be discovered to show that she had worn these 
 General articles. The surgeons for the prosecution say that they should 
 
 not expect to find such a furrow, as the fingers were in so 
 advanced a stage of decomposition that even had the ring been 
 worn regularly it could not have been discovered. But we 
 find that for some time before llth September, 1874, the ring 
 was not worn, but was in pawn. Other evidences as to identity 
 were found in the fact of a jet button, such as were worn by 
 Harriet Lane, being found in the rubbish near the grave, 
 and that the ears of the body were pierced for earrings. 
 Harriet Lane, it was proved, was in the habit of wearing a 
 peculiar pad, and a similar pad was found on the body. 
 
 But the identity does not rest here, because again I have 
 to call your attention to the' very great importance, not only 
 as to the evidence of facts which has been given, but also upon 
 those matters which must exist, but which have not been dis- 
 closed I mean, if this pad is not the pad of Harriet Lane, 
 whose pad is it? If it is not the body of Harriet Lane, well, 
 then Harriet Lane went away with Frieake, or with somebody 
 else. Harriet Lane is alive now in all human probability, and 
 so is Frieake. But Harriet Lane has never been heard of since 
 llth September, 1874. We have no news of her; but, on the 
 other hand, on llth September in this year, exactly twelve 
 months after Harriet Lane found her way from Sidney Square 
 to Whitechapel Road, we have this terrible discovery of Henry 
 Wainwright in possession of the mutilated remains of a woman 
 who evidently came to her death by foul play. Why is she 
 silent, except because she is dead? 
 
 Gentlemen, these are the facts in relation to the identity 
 of the body with that of Harriet Lane which my learned friend 
 commented upon, except that he dealt with the second count 
 in the indictment, which alleges, for obvious reasons, that the 
 body found and the woman murdered is that of a woman whose 
 name is unknown. I have already commented upon the 
 theory of my friend with regard to that portion of the case. 
 His theory is that it is the body of somebody else who com- 
 mitted suicide. I say that such a theory is an insult to your 
 reason; but whether it is so or not, what account has Henry 
 Wainwright given with respect to that woman ? He must know 
 all about her. In his breast all knowledge in relation to her 
 must lie; but he has given no account of her, either through 
 his own mouth or by his counsel. 
 
 I regret that no question was asked with respect to the 
 bones, but I don't suggest that there would be shrinking of 
 them. I do, however, suggest that there would be shrinking
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 of the cartilages. If you are to come to the conclusion that The Attorney- 
 
 the body was that of a woman only 4 feet 11 inches in height, General 
 
 it is clear that she could not be the woman who was nearly 
 
 the same height as Mrs. Allen. This, therefore, is matter of 
 
 grave importance to consider, whether the evidence of Mr. 
 
 Bond with regard to the shrinking of the cartilages is correct, 
 
 and whether that is sufficient to account for the difference in 
 
 the height. I submit to you that it does, and I think it right 
 
 to draw your attention to the very terms of the evidence. [The 
 
 learned counsel here read the evidence of Mr. Bond, wherein 
 
 he described the manner in which the cartilages shrank.] Mr. 
 
 Bond put it as the contraction, or disappearance, as it were, 
 
 of the intervertebral cartilages which exist between the numerous 
 
 bones of the spine. Then, again, the shortening may have been 
 
 contributed to by the cutting up of the body. If that question 
 
 has been set at rest by that evidence and it has not been 
 
 contradicted by Mr. Meadows and Mr. Aubyn it brings 
 
 the height of Harriet Lane to as nearly as possible that 
 
 which she was described co have been. Then you have the 
 
 correspondence in height as well as in other particulars, and 
 
 it would be a most extraordinary thing that you should find a 
 
 correspondence between the body discovered and the woman 
 
 missing, and yet get no explanation of the whereabouts of the 
 
 woman. 
 
 Having said this much, I now pass on from the case of the 
 prosecution as presented to you against Henry Wainwright to 
 the case which for the prosecution I present to you against 
 Thomas. As I said in opening the case, the character of the 
 evidence is the same, although the amount of evidence is very 
 different. Still, it will be your bounden duty to consider the 
 evidence laid before you as pressing against Thomas with the 
 greatest care on the one hand that justice shall not be 
 defeated by your giving effect to any doubt not worthy of 
 your attention, and care on the other hand that the interest of 
 the prisoner shall not suffer. The evidence against Thomas 
 begins with the allegation that he for some reason or other 
 it may be from affection for his brother, from a desire to 
 serve his brother, or for some less worthy motive lent him- 
 self to a plot which had been invented by his brother to pass 
 himself as Edward Frieake, who was the friend of Henry 
 Wainwright. You may ask, what was to be gained by such 
 a plot? That is not for me to say. But if I show that such 
 a scheme was on foot, I shall ask you to infer something. It 
 may be that Harriet Lane was to be soothed or conciliated, 
 or to be persuaded that some place would be obtained for her, 
 
 199
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 The Attorney- and that steps were being taken for the purpose of obtaining 
 General it j t mav be ^^ w h at was intended amounted at the outset 
 
 to no more than that. It may be that there was a deeper 
 design, and that a plot was intended for the purpose of getting 
 Harriet Lane to go to the place where her destruction was 
 effected. It may be that there was a design or plan adopted 
 for the purpose of persuading Harriet Lane that money was 
 to be obtained through the medium of Mr. Frieake money 
 to be used for the purpose of providing her with a suitable 
 residence. That is the suggestion I find, and it is entitled to 
 your grave attention and consideration. 
 
 But, as I said before, if there was this arrangement, scheme, 
 or contrivance, and if I show you that it existed, there must 
 have been some reason for it, and some object intended by it. 
 Can you have a doubt as to its existence? I submit to you 
 from the evidence of Mrs. Foster that there can be no question 
 that the Frieake who called there was the only Frieake of whom 
 we have any intelligible account. Harriet Lane no doubt 
 thought that Mr. Frieake, the auctioneer of Coleman Street, 
 was this Frieake, and this I take to be clear evidence, even to 
 demonstration, from the letter which she wrote to him, and 
 which I have already read. As to that letter, I shall call 
 your attention specially to the words, "I have well considered 
 the subject we spoke of, and think if Harry and yourself 
 would see me to-morrow evening, we may be able to arrange 
 matters satisfactorily." It is clear from this that something 
 had been going on in the shape of an arrangement, an arrange- 
 ment to which Harriet Lane, Henry Wainwright, and this man 
 Frieake were to be parties. It is evident from the letter that 
 Harriet Lane had been introduced to Frieake, and that the 
 latter had called upon her at her lodgings is pretty clear, 
 but not absolutely so. We gather also from this letter, which 
 speaks volumes on this point, that Frieake had been kind to 
 her, and this surely implies previous acquaintanceship of some 
 extent. She refers to having " behaved unladylike," and 
 may this not have been the night spoken to by Mrs. Foster? 
 I do not say so, but perhaps there are reasons for believing it 
 was. This letter was received in the due course of post by 
 Frieake, the auctioneer of Coleman Street, who naturally was 
 perfectly astonished at its contents. If Thomas Wainwright 
 was Frieake, he would be free from his business on Saturday, 
 and would be able to go to this place. But I shall leave this 
 part of the case until later on. At present I say that this 
 letter should be sufficient to satisfy any reasonable mind that 
 there had been a Frieake who was introduced to Harriet Lane 
 as the auctioneer of Coleman Street 
 200
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 Mrs. Foster says that this Frieake came to her house to see The Attorney- 
 about furniture which he was going to get for Mrs. King, and General 
 get her opinion on the colours she would like, and so forth. 
 This shows that something was being instilled into this woman's 
 mind which led her to believe that she was to be established 
 in another home, or to have, possibly, a home of her own. 
 
 I ask you, then, is it not clear that some scheme waa on 
 foot, and that it was that some person, under the name of 
 Frieake, should personate Mr. Frieake, the auctioneer of 
 Coleman Street 1 I put it to you I am not desirous of pressing 
 it unduly if Thomas Wainwright was the Mr. Frieake who 
 had gone to those lodgings, then he must have known that it 
 was not the woman's intention to abscond at all. Would he 
 not ask Henry Wainwright, " How is it you ask me to put 
 my name to fiuch a tissue of lies? What is your motive? Where 
 is Mrs. King? Satisfy me that Mrs. King is alive, satisfy me 
 that Mrs. King is being cared for ; satisfy me that there is some 
 shadow of foundation in this story, and I will do it." It is 
 strange that even a brother's love or a brother's affection should 
 have led him to commit to writing words which convey the idea 
 that this woman, who he had no reason to believe had 
 designedly separated herself from her friends, had gone away, 
 never to return. 
 
 Regarding the letters and telegrams, you are entitled to 
 connect the two things together, and to assume that there was 
 a plot between the two brothers prior to September. Who 
 sent those Dover telegrams? It was either Thomas or Henry, 
 both of whom knew that this woman was missing, and I say 
 that it must have been Thomas. It is curious that these tele- 
 grams should have been sent, and I don't know that I can 
 suggest any reason which would account for them. 
 
 We do not hear anything more against Thomas till we come 
 to the time he is engaged in getting a lease of the Hen and 
 Chickens in the Borough in October, 1874. He left the service 
 of Mr. Arkell, Oxford Street, and towards the end of the year 
 we find him borrowing money from Mr. Lewis on a draft 
 accepted by his brother. As far as we know, he got the money, 
 Henry being responsible for its being paid out of a sum of 300 
 he expected to receive when his claim on the insurance company 
 was settled. Mr. Lewis seems not only to have taken a bill of 
 sale on the ironmonger's goods in the shop at the Hen and 
 Chickens, but he placed an attachment on that sum. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It must have been an existing 
 debt, and not a promise for which the acceptance was given, 
 otherwise there could have been no attachment. 
 
 201
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 The Attorney- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If there were any existing debt 
 General it ^^ not have been a bribe, and I therefore eay no more 
 
 about that. As regards the key, the only cogent fact to which 
 I will draw your attention is that Thomas obtained the key 
 from Mr. Lewis, and it was afterwards found in the possession 
 of Henry Wainwright when he went to the Hen and Chickens 
 to deposit the body of the woman on llth September, 1875. 
 The next piece of evidence affecting Thomas is that on 10th 
 September, 1875, while Henry was buying the cloth and the 
 rope he was buying the chopper and the spade. We have now 
 to deal with the question whether this was Thomas. Mr. Arkell, 
 his employer, deposed that he attended pretty regularly to his 
 business, but he was absent on a number of occasions, as was 
 shown by the small number of sales he had effected ; and then 
 Mr. Arkell's shop closed at five on a Saturday, and 5th Septem- 
 ber was a Saturday, so that there was nothing to prevent Thomas 
 from getting to the residence of Mrs. Foster in Sidney Square 
 on that day. With reference to the matter of the champagne 
 glasses, Mr. Humphries has an entry in his diary to fix the 
 date. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It strikes me, Mr. Attorney- 
 General, that it is not at all impossible he may have made that 
 entry when the glasses were returned, which would make all the 
 difference. 
 
 Mr. BESLET I am sure your lordship will forgive me for 
 interrupting, but my memory is that there was to be a change 
 of managers on 8th September, and that Mr. Humphries on 
 that day found the glasses were short, which led him to infer 
 that he sent for the glasses, which were lent on the preceding 
 5th. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No, I did not hear that. 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If 5th September was the day on 
 which he saw Henry and Thomas, it must be the date on which 
 the champagne glasses were supplied. Now, it may be said, 
 as your lordship has said, that he may be inaccurate as to the 
 date on which the two brothers were there, but it is a circum- 
 stance not unworthy of your attention that on the very day 
 that Mr. Humphries speaks of the brothers being present at 
 his house, on that very day, Henry Wainwright sends the letter 
 to Harriet Lane which commences " Dear Pet." 
 
 If Thomas was Frieake, what was he playing the part of 
 
 Frieake for? Was there some plot or conspiracy against this 
 
 unhappy woman 1 What was his motive, and by what reasons 
 
 was he actuated? Affection and friendship may actuate one 
 
 202
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 man to serve his brother, while upon another such motives would The Attorney- 
 have no effect, but the chance of obtaining a sum of money General 
 may have effect. 
 
 On 10th September, 1874, Henry Wainwright is known to 
 have purchased some chloride of lime, but there is no connection 
 with Thomas Wainwright in that matter, and we have the fact 
 that Thomas did not appear again on the scene until the writing 
 of that letter which bears no date, but which is addressed from 
 the Charing Cross Hotel. That letter is admitted to be in his 
 handwriting. On the subject of that letter let me draw your 
 attention to the theory of my friend Mr. Moody, that if there 
 had been any I am assuming that Thomas Wainwright was 
 Frieake if there was any contrivance or scheme by those two 
 brothers, it was a scheme under which Mrs. King should be 
 persuaded that Mr. Frieake, the friend of Henry, was obtaining 
 in some way, or about to obtain, a loan wherewith to purchase 
 furniture for her new lodgings. Therefore, if that be so, 
 there was no idea that Mrs. King should disappear with Wain- 
 wright, certainly no idea that she could disappear with Mr. 
 Frieake, and to be separated from her friends, to lose sight of 
 her children, or to be estranged from those who were dear to 
 her. That is what would be in the mind of the man who wrote 
 this letter. He would know he had been playing a part to pacify 
 and soothe Mrs. King, but not having any criminality in it, 
 and when he was asked to write this letter which conveyed to 
 Miss Wilmore that she was to break with her old friend, and 
 was not to come back again, was he an innocent man? 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Why not? I mean with reference 
 to the consciousness of guilt. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Why, he should not write it because 
 he knew he was the man who had been passed off as Mr. Frieake, 
 and that this was a lie about her going off with him. He must 
 have known it was not her intention to withdraw herself from 
 her friends and her children. It was not her intention to discard 
 all her intimates and connections, her friends and acquaintances, 
 for the future. If there was another Frieake, and Henry had 
 come to Thomas and said, " This poor Mrs. King has absconded, 
 and has gone away with Frieake, a friend of mine, and she will 
 not come back, and I am anxious to satisfy her friends that 
 they may not bore me any longer with their inquiries," he 
 might then have written such a letter as this. I ask you if 
 you can understand it I do not ask myself if I can under- 
 stand it. Why, if she had gone away, in a moment he could 
 have exculpated himself by speaking the truth ; but if there was
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 The Attorney- another Mr. Frieake, I might understand, and you might under- 
 General stand, that Thomas could have written this letter. But if 
 Thomas was Mr. Frieake, then you have Mr. Frieake, of Coleman 
 Street, who had nothing to do with this matter; you have 
 Thomas, the known Mr. Frieake, who had nothing to do with 
 the elopement of Mrs. King; and in order to understand that, 
 you have to understand that there was another and a third 
 Mr. Frieake, about whom we can learn nothing, as far as I 
 know a man who had been a friend of Henry Wainwright, a 
 companion of Henry, trusted by Henry with the negotiation of 
 an agreement with Mrs. King, who was living under his pro- 
 tection as his wife, but about whom Henry Wainwright could 
 have given a satisfactory account. It is useless to support even 
 the minor charge, unless there is good reason for believing 
 that he was aiding and assisting his brother to escape from the 
 consequences of his crime. 
 
 Let us then consider what must be done between the pur- 
 chase of the spade and the chopper and the brothers being 
 together on the morning of the llth. The work of removing 
 the remains and cutting up the body could not have been 
 done by Henry alone in the short time he had at his disposal. 
 I would remark that there is a bit of evidence tending to 
 show that Henry Wainwright could not do this alone, because 
 you will remember there was found on the floor of the ware- 
 house by the police not only the axe and shovel and pieces of 
 American cloth and rope, but there was also found a knife, 
 which has been described to you, which is called a pocket knife. 
 Mr. MOODY A very common one. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL A very common knife, I hear my 
 learned friend Mr. Moody say, and a very common knife it is, 
 I admit; but was it Henry Wainwright's knife? Because if 
 it were, he must have had two, for when he was searched by 
 the police there was found amongst many other things a pocket 
 knife. Then comes the question, was he doing the work alone, 
 and, if not, who could be with him? Can you conceive any 
 one else being with him except the man who had written at 
 his suggestion the letter from Charing Cross station? Thomas 
 Wainwright was seen the next day with Henry Wainwright 
 close to Mr. Martin's shop, and appeared to be ill, and had 
 shaved off his moustache. You must say what in your judg- 
 ment this all points to. Then, again, it is undoubted that the 
 body was being removed by Henry Wainwright to the Hen and 
 Chickens, where it appears there was the very receptacle which 
 one would choose for depositing, at all events for a short time, 
 204
 
 Address to Jury. 
 
 the remains of that unfortunate woman, and these premises The Attorney- 
 were in Thomas's occupation. 
 
 You have heard the indictment under which Thomas is 
 charged with being a party to this crime, and under that part 
 of the indictment it will be open for you to find him guilty 
 of being accessory before the fact. There is a separate count 
 for aiding and assisting his brother after the murder which 
 has been committed, and in disposing of the remains, or, in 
 fact, of assisting his brother to evade justice. These are the 
 facts which I have to lay before you against Thomas Wain- 
 wright. Although these charges are of the gravest character, 
 the first being looked upon as bad as actual murder itself, 
 and in fact it assumes the shape of a charge of murder, of 
 course you would not dream of convicting any man of such a 
 crime except upon the most clear and convincing proof. You 
 must ask yourselves whether the proof that has been offered to 
 you is sufficient to satisfy your minds that Thomas Wainwright 
 was guilty of either of these offences. As I put in my opening, 
 so I put to you again now, one of the main questions seems 
 to be whether the explanation which he gave, or the explana- 
 tion which is given for him before you, is such an explanation 
 as can be offered to reasonable minds, or such as reasonable 
 minds can be convinced is consistent with innocence. If it is, 
 he is entitled to your verdict of acquittal; if it is not, I am 
 sure you will not hesitate for a moment in fulfilling your duty. 
 
 Adjourned till to-morrow.
 
 Ninth Day Wednesday, 1st December, 1875. 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 Lord Chief LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COCKBURN said Gentlemen of the jury, 
 Justice I am quite sure there needs no exhortation from me to ensure 
 your careful attention to the facts of the case, which I am 
 about to bring before you. You have shown throughout the 
 deepest appreciation of the magnitude and importance of this 
 great trial, and you have given to it unqualified and unceasing 
 attention, which must have been eminently satisfactory to all 
 who desire that you should arrive at a just and righteous 
 decision. 
 
 We start at the outset of the inquiry with a fact of primary 
 importance. On llth September the prisoner Henry Wain- 
 wright wa.s found in possession of the mangled body of a 
 woman. It was found that those remains had recently been 
 severed by some blunt instrument. It was discovered that they 
 had been recently taken from a grave, dug evidently for the 
 purpose of concealment, in premises which had been occupied 
 by the prisoner. It was discovered that the remains of the 
 woman so found in the possession of the prisoner had been 
 murdered by some one. You have to inquire whether the life 
 thus taken by foul means was taken by the prisoner at the bar. 
 In this case there can be no doubt that the life of the 
 deceased was taken by violence. The whole question turns on 
 the point' was it the prisoner at the bar by whose hand that 
 life was taken? It is alleged on the part of the prosecution 
 that the remains found in the possession of the prisoner were 
 those of Harriet Louisa Lane, who, as we all know now, was 
 for some time his mistress. Evidence has been brought to 
 satisfy you of the fact that these remains once constituted 
 the body of Harriet Louisa Lane. Of the value of that evidence 
 and the effect of it you are to form your own judgment; but 
 I am bound to tell you that if you should be of opinion that 
 the prisoner took the life of the person whose body he was 
 dealing with, even though the proof of identity should fail, it 
 will then be your duty to convict him. It is not necessary in 
 a charge of murder that the identity of the person killed should 
 be established ; the law throws its protection alike around the 
 206
 
 Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 unknown and the known as far as it can, and makes him who Lord Chief 
 takes human life amenable to its penalties. If, then, it is l 
 shown that the life of the veriest stranger or outcast has been 
 taken, he who takes it will be as responsible as though it was 
 the life of the highest in the land. 
 
 Although the proposition is unquestionably true, in such a 
 case as this, where the murderer has not been taken red- 
 handed with the blood of his victim upon him and the instru- 
 ment of death in his hand, where the evidence is almost 
 entirely circumstantial, it is of importance that the identity 
 of the person murdered should be established, in order to 
 discover the existence of some motive for taking that life. 
 Happily men do not ordinarily commit crime without some 
 motive, though in every instance that motive is inadequate 
 to the crime of murder. There are, however, minds on which 
 motives, however inadequate, will sometimes operate to produce 
 crime; and therefore, in this case, where the evidence is 
 entirely of a circumstantial character, the question whether 
 these were the remains of Harriet Louisa Lane becomes of great 
 moment, and one on which you will have to exercise your 
 judgment to the best of your ability. 
 
 The evidence to establish the remains with Harriet Louisa 
 Lane is of a twofold character. It is partly direct, such as a 
 comparison of the remains with the personal appearance and 
 marks of the missing woman, or the finding of articles of her 
 dress in the grave. It is also based upon the facts and the 
 history of the case itself. I will state as succinctly as I can, 
 but omitting nothing you ought to know, what those incidents 
 are. Harriet Louisa Lane was the youngest of seven living 
 daughters of Mr. John Lane, of Waltham Cross. She must 
 have been, about the time she became missing, of the age of 
 twenty-four. It appears that she was apprenticed to Mrs. 
 Gray, milliner, of Waltham Cross, and had a fellow-apprentice 
 whose name is intimately connected with this inquiry I mean 
 Ellen Wilmore. When the term of her apprenticeship expired 
 in the end of 1870, or the beginning of 1871, she came to 
 London. She appears to have been a person who for her class 
 had had a rather superior education. We are told that she 
 attempted to set up in some business as a milliner at Waltham 
 Cross, which came to nothing. The first that we really know 
 of her after she came to London is that she had become the 
 mistress of Henry Wainwright, and had borne a child. After 
 she came to London she renewed her acquaintance with Ellen 
 Wilmore, who at first supposed she was the wife of the man 
 whose assumed name, " King," she had assumed. They were 
 
 207
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Lord Chle both going by the name of King he Percy, and she Mrs. King. 
 
 Justice j^- gg \yi[ more gays that in August, 1872, Mrs. King was 
 delivered of a child, the acknowledged child of Henry Wain- 
 wright. We do not know where she was living during the first 
 part of her intimacy with the prisoner, but in October, 1873, 
 lodgings were taken for her at the house of Mrs. Wells, St. 
 Peter Street, Hackney Road. The prisoner Henry Wainwright 
 took her to the apartments himself. At this time a child was 
 born, and was in the care of Miss Wilmore, who, at the instance 
 of the mother, took it at the age of three months, the prisoner 
 Henry Wainwright paying 1 a week for its maintenance. It 
 appears from Mrs. Wells' s evidence that during the time Mrs. 
 King was staying at her house he was in the habit of visiting 
 her from time to time and of staying for a considerable time 
 on several occasions. She remained there until the end of 
 April or the beginning of May, 1874, and in the course of that 
 stay she was delivered of a child. Now, that was the child 
 of the prisoner Henry Wainwright, for he visited her shortly 
 after her confinement, and on various other occasions. During 
 that time we hear no complaints of want of pecuniary supplies ; 
 everything seems to have gone on smoothly. 
 
 She left in the early part of May to go to other lodgings, 
 which had been taken for her by Henry Wainwright at the house 
 of Mrs. Foster, 3 Sidney Square. Mrs. Foster had apartments 
 to let, and Wainwright calls and looks at them, and inquires 
 whether she would take a lady with a nurse and two children. 
 Mrs. Foster made the natural inquiry whether the lady was 
 his wife, and she received an answer which for the time satisfied 
 her on that point, and she agreed to let the apartments. The 
 next, morning he brought Mrs. King to look at the apartments, 
 and, she approving, they were taken. The prisoner had men- 
 tioned the night before to Mrs. Foster that he was a traveller, 
 that his business took him very much away from London, and 
 that as a consequence he could come but seldom to see Mrs. King. 
 In fact, from the time he took her to see the apartments to the 
 time she left he never once slept there. He directed Rogers, 
 who appeared to have been the means of communication between 
 him and Mrs. King, to go in the evening, take a cab, and take 
 her and the nurse and children to the new lodgings in Sidney 
 Square, which Rogers accordingly did. 
 
 Here, then, we have her settled in the month of May at Mrs. 
 Foster's, and here begins a new phase, as it were, in this 
 mystery. Up to this time things had gone on smoothly with 
 her. There were no complaints of want of money, no dissensions
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 or discord between the parties. But very soon after Mrs. King Lord Chief 
 
 had gone to live at Mrs. Foster's we find pecuniary difficulties " 
 
 arising. As early as 20th May we find her resorting to pledging 
 
 her things. She begins by pledging that which a woman who 
 
 is a wife, or even only passes as one, usually keeps to the last, 
 
 viz., the wedding ring which she was in the habit of wearing. 
 
 Down to llth September, a memorable day in the history of this 
 
 case, we find from Miss Wilmore'e statement that she had parted 
 
 with everything she could spare, even to her very linen, to the 
 
 pawnbrokers. Now, it would be wrong to ascribe that to any 
 
 intention on the part of Henry Wainwright to desert this woman, 
 
 or to fail to maintain her as far as he could. I think we must 
 
 look for the cause of it to the alteration which had taken place 
 
 in his circumstances, an alteration which it is important to 
 
 bear in mind in more respects than one. 
 
 As early as the end of 1873 Henry Wainwright, who appears 
 at one time to have carried on a flourishing business, got into 
 difficulties. He had dissolved partnership with his brother 
 William, with whom for a long time he had carried on the busi- 
 ness. I suppose, then, for the purpose of bringing capital into 
 the business, he took into partnership a Mr. Sawyer, in Novem- 
 ber, 1873, but Mr. Sawyer soon became dissatisfied with the 
 state of things which he found. He thought he had been 
 deceived and duped, for he repudiated the partnership, threw 
 affairs into Chancery, and obtained a dissolution of the partner- 
 ship on 8th June, 1874, getting himself appointed receiver to 
 get in the assets and liquidate as far as he could the partnership 
 debts. He took possession of the premises, and remained in 
 possession till the ensuing July, so that it will be easily under- 
 stood that it must have been a serious interruption and detriment 
 to the business of Henry Wainwright. In the meantime, the 
 partnership with Sawyer being dissolved, the prisoner was 
 pressed by his own immediate creditors, and was obliged to have 
 recourse to a liquidation. On 15th May a meeting of creditors 
 took place at which it was resolved that they would accept a 
 composition of 12s. in the pound, the terms being that 6s. 
 should be paid down in a week, 3s. at the expiry of three 
 months, and 3s. more at the expiry of six months. Wainwright 
 at this time owed over 3250, independent of a considerable debt 
 to his brother William. The 6s. should have been paid in the 
 course of a week, but it was not paid till the month of July, 
 at which time 787 6s. 8d. appears to have been received 
 by the trustees on the part of the creditors. The second instal- 
 ment of 3s. in the pound is said to have been paid a long time 
 f 209
 
 The Wain wrights, 
 
 Lord Chief afterwards, while the last instalment never has been paid at 
 Justice ftll 
 
 It is plain, under these circumstances, that Henry Wain- 
 wright was at this period in a state of great pecuniary difficulty, 
 otherwise the instalment would not have stood over. No doubt 
 it was a matter of difficulty with him to find money to meet 
 the demands upon him. He is therefore in this position : he 
 is involved in pecuniary embarrassments, has engagements to 
 meet in order to keep off actual bankruptcy of a kind which 
 would embarrass him very much indeed. He has, besides the 
 demands of his creditors, to keep up his own establishment in 
 Tredegar Square, where he has a wife and five children to 
 maintain; and last comes this unfortunate Harriet Lane, who 
 appears to have had no resources of her own, and whose ten- 
 dency does not appear to have been to have recourse to her own 
 exertion to maintain herself and her children, and who was 
 dependent on him, and looked to him, and to him alone, for 
 her maintenance, and who before that, by his liberality or 
 extravagance, had received as much as 5 a week a consider- 
 able sum for a man in his position. 
 
 In this state of things we may rightly suppose that a 
 woman who found herself in such a position of need would be 
 perpetually urging the man, to whom she thought she had a right 
 to look, to find her the means of subsistence. On one occasion 
 we find he can only manage to send her a couple of pounds, 
 at which she is indignant, and throws them upon the table 
 with expressions of dissatisfaction. Rogers tells us that in July 
 or August she was at the shop at least a dozen times, and Mrs. 
 Rogers says she was .there twenty times. Scenes of anger 
 appear to have occurred between them; and on one occasion 
 Rogers saw them at the other end of the shop gesticulating 
 violently, and on another occasion Mrs. Rogers heard loud 
 talking as of people quarrelling. Besides that, there takes place 
 a scene which is not immaterial, if you believe the evidence. 
 Some time in August Mrs. King's necessities must have been very 
 pressing, for all her things were in pawn ; and one evening Mrs. 
 Rogers, who was at the top of the stairs, heard the voice of a 
 woman exclaim, " Oh, don't 1 oh, don't! " Immediately after- 
 wards Mrs. Rogers' husband is called downstairs, and Wain- 
 wright gives him a letter addressed to his wife at Tredegar 
 Square, which he tells him to take there. Mrs. King makes a 
 snatch at the letter and endeavours to get it out of Rogers' 
 hand, but Rogers holds it fast, and the result is that it is torn 
 across. In that condition Rogers takes it, but he says he 
 
 210
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 thought he would look at the letter before he took it, and he 
 tells you he found it contained strong language to this effect, 
 " I can't survive the disgrace and exposure. . . . You will 
 never see me more." Afterwards it occurred to him that 
 this letter had only been given to him for the purpose of pro- 
 ducing some effect on the mind of Mrs. King, and that it was 
 not intended that he should take it, or, at all events, that it 
 was a foolish thing on the part of Wainwright, if he had written 
 this letter under excitement, to send it to his wife. Under these 
 circumstances, he thought he had better not deliver it, and he 
 therefore took the earliest opportunity of throwing the letter into 
 the fire. He having gone out, Mrs. Rogers tells us that she 
 heard the door slam shortly afterwards; there is a ring at the 
 bell, and on going downstairs, she looked into the shop, and 
 there saw a woman lying upon the floor, and that 
 woman she found was Mrs. King. She opens the door, and 
 the prisoner comes in, and she tells him that Mrs. King is lying 
 on the floor. He goes up to her and eays, "Oh, she has 
 fainted. Get me some vinegar." Mrs. Rogers gets the vinegar, 
 and he says to her, " That will do. I will take care of her." 
 Soon afterwards they are heard to go out. 
 
 You are asked by the learned counsel for the prisoner Henry 
 Wainwright not to believe the statement of Rogers and Mrs. 
 Rogers, and, if that statement be untrue, they have committed 
 the most vile and wicked perjury. But with what motive? 
 There does not appear to be the slightest feeling of resentment 
 towards Henry Wainwright; and yet, if they have invented 
 this story, they have come here, not to further the interests 
 of one party at the cost of another in a civil suit, but for the 
 purpose, as far as in them lay, of giving evidence whereby the 
 conviction of Henry Wainwright of the crime of murder shall 
 be established. Now, what is there to lead us to believe that 
 they have been guilty of this awful crime? I confess I do not 
 see it. All I can say is that, if such a scene happened, it shows 
 what was the unfortunate position of the two parties. 
 
 Besides this, there appears to have been constant communica- 
 tion between the two application for money which the prisoner 
 had not the means to supply. It is said that this state of 
 things supplies a motive operating on the mind of Henry 
 Wainwright, and there is no doubt she must have been a heavy 
 burden upon him, a burden not easy to be got rid of, and one 
 which would cling to him for years to come. There can be 
 little doubt that she was in his estimation a constant source of 
 danger. He had not the money to satisfy her, and she was apt 
 
 211
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Lord Chief to be ill-tempered. It is no wonder, when she found herself in 
 Justice such ft pOB i t i on ? s he was apt to be ill-tempered, and on more 
 than one occasion she showed this. There would be no knowing 
 what a woman under such circumstances, if she happened to 
 get a little too much drink, might do in the way of creating a 
 disturbance, and possibly lead to an exposure which might 
 reach the ears of Wainwright's wife, who up to this time knew 
 nothing of the secret correspondence with the woman who 
 passed as Mrs. King. Thus he lived, as it were, on the edge 
 of a volcano that might at any moment have exploded, and 
 led to disastrous consequences as regarded both his domestic 
 life and his public life, because he was carrying on business 
 amidst respectable tradesmen, who were well acquainted with 
 him, so that to have a woman coming to his place of business 
 and beginning a disturbance there, and clamouring and making 
 her position relative to himself known, could not, of course, help 
 being distressing and annoying in the extreme. Hence it is, 
 although such a reason for desiring to get rid of her is fright- 
 fully inadequate when we consider the enormity of the crime 
 with which he is charged, that we are still afforded some 
 explanation of the circumstances which are to follow hereafter. 
 I now come to the Frieake episode. It is a very curious 
 part of the history, and one which requires very careful atten- 
 tion. It appears that during the latter part of Mrs. King's 
 stay at Mrs. Foster's a person passing by the name of Edward 
 Frieake becomes intimate with her. There is some 
 reason to think that Edward Frieake becomes intimate 
 with her. There is some reason to think that Edward 
 Frieake had been introduced to her at an earlier 
 period, when she was staying with Mrs. Wells, for she 
 tells us that shortly after Christmas, 1873, when King happened 
 on one occasion to come to see his alleged sister-in-law, Mrs. 
 King, he brought with him a stranger, who was shown into the 
 parlour downstairs, while King went upstairs to visit Mrs. 
 King. After a short time he opened the door of Mrs. King's 
 apartment, and called at the top of the stairs, " Edward, 
 come up; I want you," upon which the stranger went upstairs, 
 probably for the purpose of being introduced. He stayed only 
 a short time, and came down again, taking his seat again in 
 the parlour, and remained there during the continuance of the 
 visit to the lady upstairs, which appears to have lasted from 
 an hour to an hour and a half. Mrs. Wells had thus an oppor- 
 tunity of seeing the stranger, and she is a witness to his 
 identity. 
 
 212
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 Nothing more is heard of Frieake or his connections with Lord Chief 
 Mrs. King until some time in the month of August. Then Justiee 
 he appears to have visited her on two or three occasions, at all 
 events, at the house of Mrs. Foster. This lady tells us that 
 Mrs. King told her she expected a gentleman to call upon her 
 on a particular day, that he was a friend, that he had promised 
 to furnish two rooms for her, and that he was coming in order 
 to see if they could agree about the carpet. The gentleman 
 came that evening. Mrs. King met him on the stairs, and he 
 at once passed into her room. On another occasion the same 
 gentleman came, and then gave his name as Frieake. Mrs. 
 Foster went upstairs and announced him, he following. When 
 he was announced, Miss Wilmore, who was in the room, left 
 the room. As she was going out he went in, and she had thus 
 an opportunity of seeing him. 
 
 On another occasion we have the story about the champagne, 
 a not unimportant one, because .it tends to fix the identity of 
 the person who was passing under the name of Frieake. It 
 seems that upon the occasion of one visit of this gentleman he 
 brought a pint bottle of champagne, and Mrs. Foster tells us 
 that Mrs. King asked her for some champagne glasses. Mre. 
 Foster did not happen to have such things, but she goes across 
 to the Princess Royal, the public-house, asks for three cham- 
 pagne glasses, and they are lent her. Mr. Humphries, the 
 landlord of the public-house, fixes the 5th September for the 
 occasion upon which the two brothers were at the Princess 
 Royal for an hour or an hour and a half. After they had been 
 there for some time Thomas Wainwright asks for a pint bottle 
 of champagne. He gets it, goes out, and shortly afterwards 
 in comes Mrs. Foster to borrow the champagne glasses. From 
 this we may infer that the man who took away the pint bottle 
 of champagne was the man who made his appearance on the 
 other side of the square at No. 3 with a pint bottle of cham- 
 pagne. Humphries goes on to say that some person came back 
 and called for a quart bottle of champagne, which he took 
 away. He fixes these two events as having happened on one 
 and the same evening, namely, 5th September, 1874. His 
 reason for fixing the date on that day is that, upon being asked 
 to lend the champagne glasses, he found that his own establish- 
 ment was short of them, and he enters a minute in his book 
 of the day's proceedings to direct his manager to get more 
 champagne glasses, in order that they may not be short of 
 them. 
 
 213
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief Now, the question presents itself, who was this person taking 
 Justice the name of Edward Frieake 1 Was he the undoubted Edward 
 Frieake, the auctioneer who lived at Coleman Street? It is 
 quite clear Mrs. King thought so, because, having had a dispute 
 with the supposed Edward Frieake having behaved, as she 
 says, rudely to him, and shown temper to him she afterwards 
 felt ashamed, and she sat in her room and wrote him a letter. 
 That letter finds its way to the counting-house or place of 
 business of the undoubted Edward Frieake. Therefore we can 
 come to no other conclusion than that Mrs. King herself was 
 allowed to suppose that the E. Frieake to whom she had been 
 introduced by Henry Wainwright was his old friend E. Frieake, 
 the auctioneer. 
 
 Now comes the question, what was the purpose of this intro- 
 duction and of these negotiations taking place between E. 
 Frieake and Mrs. King It is one of the mysterious parts of 
 this case one as to which, having turned it over in my mind 
 again and again, I cannot find any satisfactory solution for. 
 The counsel for the Crown, in order to involve Thomas Wain- 
 wright in the charge of being an accessory before the murder, 
 which they say was afterwards committed by Henry Wainwright, 
 make this the basis and the ground work of their case, and the 
 way in which they put it is this Henry Wainwright had at 
 this time got tired of this woman, and meditated getting rid of 
 her by murder, but inasmuch as if she were to disappear with- 
 out any ostensible cause inquiries would be made about her, 
 in reply to which it would be necessary to have some explanation 
 and excuse ready, he accordingly introduced to her his brother, 
 or somebody else, by the name of Frieake, in order that when 
 she was got rid of by violence, it might be said that she had 
 gone off with Frieake. Well, that is a very strong assumption, 
 and unless it is the only hypothesis upon which this transaction 
 can be accounted for, it is a very strong thing to assume that 
 long before the disappearance of Harriet Lane, these two 
 brothers had concocted this iniquitous scheme. Even if you 
 should be of opinion that this adoption of the name of Frieake 
 was a deception, and that it was practised by Thomas Wain- 
 wright at the instance and instigation and with the connivance 
 of his brother, do you see your way to the conclusion 
 that either of the brothers at that time had in his mind that 
 the woman should afterwards be murdered, and the name of 
 Frieake then used again in order to account for her disappear- 
 ance, by saying that she had gone off with this Mr. Frieake? If 
 you cannot arrive at that conclusion, if you feel that it is 
 214
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 impossible with every possible explanation before you to stand Lord Chief 
 on that as secure ground, then the case against Thomas Wain- Justlce 
 wright as accessory before the fact fails, and as far as that 
 which it has been suggested was done by him with a view to 
 the future crime he was meditating, and which he carried into 
 effect, fails also. 
 
 At this time it was quite evident some change was contem- 
 plated. Miss Wilmore was to take the children, but for that 
 purpose money was wanted. There was a terrible pressure on 
 Henry. He had made a composition which had swallowed up 
 700 or 800, and money for some of the creditors was not 
 forthcoming. Miss Wilmore, too, was paid in advance. Matters, 
 however, became precipitated by the disturbance in the street. 
 One evening between ten and eleven o'clock Mrs. Foster was 
 disturbed by a knock at the door, and went downstairs. She 
 there found a neighbour, who told her there was Mrs. King in 
 the street with two gentlemen one Mr. King and the other the 
 one known as Mr. Frieake. She found her lodger under the 
 influence of drink, wrangling with the men, and collecting a 
 crowd in the street, to the surprise of every one. Mrs. Foster 
 did her best to get Mrs. King indoors, but the latter turned 
 fiercely on the former with the accusation of interfering between 
 her and her husband. Upon this Mrs. Foster went in and shut the 
 door. Soon after this a knock came again, and she found Mrs. 
 King had been brought to the door by the two gentlemen, but 
 instead of going in she suddenly turned round and ran after 
 the two men. Miss Wilmore then went out to try and get her 
 in, which she at length did, but she was in such a state of excite- 
 ment that she had to sit up with her all night. This was not 
 satisfactory to Mrs. Foster, as the person making the disturb- 
 ance must be known to the neighbours as her lodger, and by 
 this time probably she was not unwilling to get rid of her 
 tenant. There is nothing so unsatisfactory to a lodging-house 
 keeper as that their tenants should suffer from want of money, 
 and this poor lady had before been unable to pay her rent. 
 Accordingly the next day she gives Mrs. King a week's notice 
 to quit. We do not know the day on which that notice was 
 given, but we know that it expired on 9th September. On that 
 day Mrs. King should have left, but she had not received money 
 to pay her way out. She owed rent, and she owed bills in the 
 neighbourhood, and was in a state of destitution, as all her 
 clothes had been pawned, and Mrs. Foster was induced to allow 
 her two days more. We may suppose that Henry Wainwright 
 had a hard struggle to find the money, but he managed to get 
 it on the 10th, and on that day he sent her 15. 
 
 215
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief On the llth Mrs. King proceeded to settle her affairs. She 
 Justice p a j^ ker rent and her debts, and Miss Wilmore got her things 
 out of pawn. Mrs. King took one of her dresses, a grey silk, 
 to wear that day, and she trimmed it with some black jet 
 buttons, which were bought in the neighbourhood. She sewed 
 them on her dress, and it turned out that of those purchased 
 there were a couple of buttons above what was required. Miss 
 Wilmore put them into a little stay-box, and those play a not 
 unimportant part in this drama. All the other things are 
 placed in a large wooden box and portmanteau and a band-box, 
 and the stay-box inside the large one. She had taken a place 
 at No. 6 The Grove, Stratford, where Miss Wilmore was to live 
 with the children, and where the boxes were to go. All this 
 being done, and these arrangements made, she went out, taking 
 nothing with her but the clothes she wore and her rings, which 
 had been got out of pawn, and a nightdress. Having put up 
 that single article, Miss Wilmore locked up the box and gave 
 her the key. They took leave of each other, and Mrs. King 
 went away. She was in good health and in good spirits, which 
 was not surprising; but from that hour to this she has never 
 been heard of alive. 
 
 About this date of the llth September, the day of her 
 disappearance, there was buried in the prisoner's premises, or 
 rather, to speak more correctly, in premises which had been 
 occupied by the prisoner Henry Wainwright, and of which he 
 still had control and the key, the body of a woman which 
 corresponds in many, if not in all, particulars with the woman 
 who had disappeared. A twelvemonth afterwards by a strange 
 coincidence in date the prisoner Henry Wainwright is found 
 removing from the grave in which this body had been placed 
 its remains to another place of concealment. Now, it is alleged 
 that the body so interred in premises under the control of Henry 
 Wainwright was the body of the woman Harriet Lane. It is 
 certain that the body thus found was the body of a person 
 whose life had been taken by violence. It is alleged that the 
 prisoner took that life. That is the theory of the prosecution, 
 and I shall call your attention presently to the evidence as to 
 the identity of the remains which the prisoner is found removing 
 with the dead body of Harriet Lane. 
 
 When Harriet Lane left 3 Sidney Square, she must have left 
 in the mind of Miss Wilmore the impression that she was only 
 going away for a day or two, and she was therefore disturbed 
 when Saturday, Sunday, and Monday came without any tidings. 
 On the Tuesday she went to Henry Wain Wright's place, and he 
 216
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 told her that she had gone to Brighton. Well, now, gentlemen, Lord Chief 
 you must just see for a moment whether the facts stated by Justiee 
 the prisoner are probable. He had had difficulty in getting 
 together the 15 necessary to pay her expenses at Sidney 
 Square, and even that had not been enough, for Miss Wilmore 
 had had to advance 2 to make up the necessary amount to 
 pay everything, and get all her things out of pawn. Now, 
 inasmuch as she had got her things out of pawn, she did not 
 want money to buy others, and it does strike me as rather 
 unlikely that he, a man in pecuniary embarrassment, should 
 be supplying her with an additional 10 for such a purpose. 
 Then, when Mrs. Taylor went to the prisoner Henry's place 
 and asked about her sister, the prisoner repeated what he had 
 said to Miss Wilmore that he had given Mrs. King 15 for 
 her lodgings and 10 for an outfit. Now the observation 
 presents itself, is it a likely thing to have occurred 1 However, 
 it might have happened, and don't let us press anything too 
 strongly against the prisoner. 
 
 According to Miss Wilmore, up to this time there had been 
 no mention of the name of Frieake, and it is certain that at the 
 first interview the name of Frieake had not been mentioned. 
 There seems a doubt in the statement of Mrs. Taylor whether 
 it was not mentioned at the interview she had for ths first time 
 with the prisoner. There is some little confusion as to this, 
 and no wonder, considering the great number of interviews 
 which took place. According to Miss Wilmore's account, the 
 name of Frieake was not mentioned until a subsequent occa- 
 sion, when she saw the prisoner Henry Wainwright standing, 
 I think, at the door of his shop. As she passed sh stopped, 
 and said, " I have not heard of Mrs. King; have you? " and 
 he said, " I have. She has gone off with my friend Frieake, 
 an auctioneer, who has lately come into a large property." 
 Upon a subsequent occasion the two women, Wilmore and 
 Taylor, agree to go and see Henry Wainwright, and on that 
 occasion the name of Frieake is brought about with additional 
 emphasis. 
 
 With regard to the letters that passed, there is no doubt 
 that the one from the Charing Cross Hotel to Miss Wilmore was 
 written by Thomas. The name is not spelt as Frieake spells 
 his name, as one of the vowels is omitted. Well, now, there 
 is no doubt that that was craftily devised, because it not only 
 cut Harriet. Lane off from all further communication with her 
 friends, but it gave an apparent reason why she should acquiesce 
 in that which was most repugnant to her feelings. She evidently 
 
 217
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief was a person of a friendly and amiable disposition; she was 
 Justice Attached to her family and friends, and was in the habit of 
 visiting them, though I cannot suppose a woman who gives 
 up her children, as she did, to a friend to be kept, could be very 
 sensitive of the feelings of a mother. Still, she was fond of 
 her children, and nothing would be less likely than that she 
 should allow any great length of time to pass without inquiring 
 about them. If it could be put in this way : here was a man 
 who is prepared, not only to maintain her, but to marry her 
 if she cuts off all connection with those associated with her by 
 blood or friendship; a woman might yield to such a thing. If 
 the letter was a false one, and was used for the purpose of 
 deceiving, it was most artfully devised. On Miss Wilmore going 
 in the morning to Wainwright and showing him the letter, he 
 produced a similar one, and on 17th October Miss Wilmore 
 received a telegram, which she showed to Mrs. Taylor, and the 
 two women went to Wainwright and showed it to him. " Oh," 
 he says, " I have received one, too." He fetches it out, saying, 
 " It came from Teddy Frieake at Dover," and he then showed 
 the contents of it to them, which appeared to be in exactly 
 the same terms as the other. Now comes the question from 
 whom came those telegrams? The letter dated Charing Cross 
 Hotel is undoubtedly in the handwriting of Thomas Wainwright. 
 No one who has compared the genuine writing with the letter 
 can entertain the shadow of a doubt about it. Nor, indeed, did 
 his counsel seek to deny it. We may therefore assume that the 
 other letter, written to Henry Wainwright, was in his hand- 
 writing. I don't think it very material whether it was or was 
 not; whether the parts in this deception were performed by 
 two or three persons, seems to be a matter of little moment. 
 The telegrams from Dover are in the name of Frieake, and one 
 of them was sent to Miss Wilmore, one to Wainwright at the 
 East End, and one to Wainwright at Fulham, where we know 
 Thomas Wainwright had some intimate friends with whom 
 he was in the habit of staying. If it were not for the circum- 
 stance that one of the three was addressed to Wainwright in 
 the Fulham district, one could entertain little doubt that Thomas 
 Wainwright, having lent himself to the scheme of deception, 
 went down to Dover and telegraphed from there in the name of 
 Frieake ; but then there is the improbability of Thomas Wain- 
 wright, if he were at Dover, telegraphing to any one of the 
 name of Wainwright at Parson's Green, because it is not shown 
 that his wife or any one of the same name was there. As I 
 said before, I don't think it matters much whether these letters 
 218
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 and telegrams were sent by one and the same person or by 
 two distinct persons, as they were clearly carrying out a 
 scheme which was to prevent inquiry as to what had become 
 of the woman. 
 
 We will pass by that part for a moment and go on with the 
 further interviews. Mrs. Taylor tells us that after this she had 
 a further interview with Wainwright. She asked him if he 
 had heard anything, and he said, " Nothing further. When 
 they have had their frolic out, they will come back." He also 
 said, " Should she return, I would not take to her. Would 
 you blame me? " And, says Mrs. Taylor, " I can't blame 
 you under the circumstances," showing that Mrs. Taylor was 
 impressed with the notion that she had gone off with Frieake. 
 
 So matters remained with regard to the two women; but it 
 happened that Mrs. Taylor had a friend in the person of a man 
 named Eeles, and Eeles was the inquiry officer for a charitable 
 institution. The interview between Eeles, who had assumed 
 the name of Fowler, and Wainwright was interrupted by an 
 officer of the Sun Fire Office, who was investigating the honesty 
 of a claim by the prisoner for compensation on account of the 
 premises No. 84, which had been burned down in the previous 
 November. 
 
 His lordship went on to state the nature of the conversation 
 which afterwards took place between these two men, and also 
 between Mr. Eeles and Mr. Frieake. Mr. Frieake, he said, 
 feels uncomfortable about this affair ; he is engaged to a young 
 lady he is about to marry, and that he should have been stated 
 to have gone off with another woman would naturally disgust 
 him considerably. The two make their way to Henry Wain- 
 wright, and ask to see him. Eeles says, " I have brought 
 Mr. Frieake himself," and Wainwright replies, "Oh! that is 
 not the Mr. Frieake I mean; it is a totally different person." 
 So Mr. Frieake says, "What does this mean? I am afraid 
 you are getting me into a mess I know nothing of. It may be 
 the ruin of my happiness. It not only affects my business, 
 but I am going to be married, and if this comes to the ears 
 of the young lady to whom I am to be married, it may destroy 
 my happiness for life." Wainwright says, " Don't be uneasy. 
 It is not you. I never meant you." Frieake then answers, " Do 
 you mean to say there is another Teddy Frieake who has the 
 same name, or who assumes the name I possess? " The 
 prisoner says, " It is a man I have known for some time. He 
 is a billiard player I have seen at Pur-cell's, Fenchurch Street, 
 at the Philharmonic, and at the Nell Gwynne. He is the man." 
 Mr. Frieake thereupon said, " Do you mean there is another 
 
 21P
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief man called Teddy Frieake in London? Mine is a very uncom- 
 Justice mon nam e," an d he then makes an observation about the 
 peculiar way his name is spelt, and that it was not like the 
 ordinary names to which we are daily used. Then Henry 
 described this Teddy Frieake as being a man with a slight dark 
 moustache, and said this affair would only be got up to extort 
 money from him. Mr. Frieake remembers then that he had 
 received a letter in the preceding August with the name of 
 King subscribed to it, and when, shortly afterwards, Eeles calls 
 again with Mr. Lane, the father, he produces it. With this 
 letter they all go to Wainwright and show it to him, and 
 point out the particular part of it in which the writer says, 
 " I have well considered the subject you spoke of, and if Harry 
 and yourself see me to-morrow evening, we may be able to 
 arrange matters satisfactorily," the name Harry obviously 
 referring to Henry Wainwright. They ask him to explain that 
 passage, but he says he cannot, and then the father makes a 
 strong appeal to him, if he knows where his daughter is, to 
 tell him, or if she be dead, to no longer keep him in suspense, 
 but let him know the worst. Wainwright says he knows 
 no more than he has told namely, that he believes she has 
 gone off with Frieake. 
 
 Now, were those statements true, or were they not? Was 
 this statement that she had gone off with Frieake founded 
 either on fact or on anything which Wainwright believed, 
 or was the whole, from beginning to end, mere invention? One 
 cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that his statements were 
 conflicting. If there be a Frieake such as the prisoner has 
 represented really existing, unless we suppose him to be in the 
 distant regions of Australia, he cannot fail to have heard of 
 this inquiry. He cannot fail to know that at this moment 
 the life of Henry Wainwright is hanging in the balance, and 
 that he can at" once exculpate him, and by coming forward 
 can save him. It is true he might think it would involve him 
 in some obloquy and disgrace if he admitted taking off this 
 woman, but what man would shrink from encountering such 
 exposure in order to save the life of a fellow-creature from 
 being unjustly sacrificed? Can you doubt that if this Frieake 
 really existed he either would have been called or some reason 
 given to account for his absence? If this man formerly fre- 
 quented some particular billiard saloon, there must be some 
 people who would have known him, and if he had suddenly 
 disappeared, and they had been called and said, "Oh, yes; 
 there was such a man ; we knew he was Edward Frieake, but 
 he has disappeared," why, that simple fact proved, although 
 220
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 the prisoner might not have been able to prove where he was, 
 would have done more to extricate him from the circumstances 
 which now militate against him than even the most eloquent 
 and able speech of the most able member of the bar. 
 
 Even supposing that at the end you should be of opinion 
 that this statement that she had gone off with Frieake was a 
 falsehood, and that the man was a mere creation of the brain, it 
 does not follow that Henry Wainwright is guilty. It may be 
 that he adopted this fraud and deception for reasons which I 
 have already alluded to, but you must take it as a fact that 
 at the time when inquiries were being made about the missing 
 Mrs. King, Henry Wainwright was making these excuses for 
 her absence. 
 
 Well now, gentlemen, I have brought the case down to the 
 point of the charge of murder against the prisoner Henry 
 Wainwright. You will remember that these inquiries after 
 Harriet Lane were discontinued somewhere early in the year 
 1875, and old Lane and Eeles had gone for the last time to see 
 Henry Wainwright. The deception, if deception it was, which 
 had been carried out through these letters and 'telegrams had 
 produced its effect inquiries were baffled. In the meantime 
 the remains of a woman were lying in the back premises of 
 215 Whitechapel Road, silently undergoing that gradual decay 
 which is the eventual and inevitable destiny of the human 
 substance when life has fled. In the back premises of Henry 
 Wainwright the remains of a woman, as I have already said, 
 corresponding in many, if not all, particulars with those of the 
 missing Harriet Lane, were lying, and there they might have 
 rested until now, or perhaps until the further progress of 
 decomposition had prevented every possible means of identifica- 
 tion, until every means by which identity could be ascertained 
 had passed away, but for circumstances arising out of the 
 pecuniary embarrassments of Henry Wainwright, a state of 
 things to which it is necessary to call your particular attention. 
 
 The learned judge then detailed the pecuniary embarrass- 
 ments which led to the premises at No. 215 being taken pos- 
 session of by Mr. Behrend, and advertised for sale. In that 
 hour, he continued, the possibility of access to those premises 
 would have been cut off. So things stood, and you will easily 
 understand that, if the body of this woman had been committed 
 to that grave by Henry Wainwright, and if the body should 
 be found, it would become manifest upon investigation that the 
 person whose body it was had come to her death by violence, 
 and the premises having been his in which it was found, he 
 might stand in a very awkward position ; and as the premises 
 
 221
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief were exposed for sale, and might at any moment be given 
 Justice to a purchaser } an d inasmuch as, after that, if anything 
 
 should be observed about the floor and it should be proposed 
 to take it up if any of those accidental circumstances hap- 
 pened, and the discovery of the body should be made, it 
 would be very awkward indeed for him. Accordingly, he made 
 up his mind to remove the body to the Hen and Chickens, 
 which had been occupied by his brother Thomas, but was at 
 that time empty, and in the cellar of which the body might 
 be buried. 
 
 It seems clear from what followed that the prisoner Henry 
 Wainwright made up his mind to hide the body. In order to do 
 that it was necessary to divide the body into parts. You .cannot 
 carry with any degree of safety, either in a cab or by any other 
 mode, a dead body along the streets of London. The police, 
 who are a vigilant set of fellows, would watch any parcel of a 
 suspicious kind of appearance. Therefore Henry Wainwright 
 made up his mind not only to exhume the body, but to cut 
 it up into parts, so that it might be packed and concealed 
 with greater security. He goes to work to provide himself 
 with the necessary implements. In the first place, it was neces- 
 sary to have an instrument with which to dig up the body; 
 in the second place, it was necessary to have an instrument 
 with which to divide it; then he must have some material in 
 which to pack it; then he must have some rope with which 
 to tie it; and we find that on the 10th, the day before the 
 murder was discovered, he purchased 3 yards of America.ii 
 leather, he purchased some rope, he purchased a hatchet, a 
 wood chopper or small hatchet, and the spade, through the 
 intervention of his brother, whom he employed for the purpose. 
 On the 10th he has some conversation with the young man 
 Stokes. Stokes had known him for many years, worked for 
 him when Henry Wainwright was in business himself; for at 
 this time, you will recollect, he had ceased to carry on business, 
 and had become the manager of Mr. Martin. Stokes tells him 
 that he has bought a chain for some use he had for it at 
 Mr. Martin's. "Ah!" says Henry Wainwright, "that will 
 be very useful. By the by, I have got something which I think 
 would be very useful if we want it in the premises. I have got 
 a spade and a chopper I should be glad to get rid of. I wish 
 you would suggest to Mr. Martin to buy them. Offer them to 
 Martin ; say they are yours, don't say they are mine. Ask him 
 to buy them, and I daresay he will buy them." It 
 certainly does strike one as a strange thing to do, that a man 
 who has a spade and chopper to sell, which have been applied 
 222
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 for the purpose for which these had been applied, should, by Lord Chief 
 going to this man, be making evidence against himself by thus us ce 
 disposing of them. That is in his favour, and ought to be 
 mentioned to you. Well, Stokes does not say no to this 
 proposal. 
 
 Then in the course of the Saturday afternoon this was on 
 the Friday the afternoon of Saturday is the afternoon on 
 which they close the shop somewhat earlier he asks Stokes to 
 fetch down certain parcels which he said had been there a 
 fortnight. Now, it is quite clear he did not put them there a 
 fortnight before. It is perfectly clear that the body was 
 taken out of the grave the night before. It is perfectly clear 
 that it was cut up I don't say the night before, but some time 
 in the day or evening before and it is quite clear that it was 
 hacked to pieces and put into the American cloth, if not the 
 night before, at all events within the then last twenty-four 
 hours. It remains to ask why should he tell this man the 
 parcels had been put there a fortnight before? However prone 
 men may be to have recourse to lies, they seldom do so unless 
 they have some need for them. 
 
 His lordship then went into the circumstances which led to 
 the discovery of the contents of the parcels by Stokes, and the 
 manner in which he called the attention of the police to the 
 prisoner Henry at the Hen and Chickens. Cox, the policeman, 
 had gone to the cab and saw the woman Alice Day in it, and, 
 a third policeman coming up, he gave the cab into his charge, 
 and went after Wainwright just in time to assist the other 
 policeman, Turner, in pushing him inside the door. Turner 
 then said, " Do you live here? I thought Lewis was on these 
 premises? " The prisoner replied, " So he was; and, if you'll 
 go with me to Lewis, he will tell you so in a moment; but you 
 ask no questions, and I will give you 50." The police 
 declined the offer, and asked what he had done with the other 
 parcel, upon which he said he had taken it upstairs. Cox went 
 to see, but had not got far when Turner called him back, 
 having noticed it lying at the top of the stairs leading to the 
 cellar. Cox then said, " Let us see what is in it," and 
 put it on a counter. Then the prisoner burst out 
 into a fervent ejaculation, " For God's sake, don't 
 touch it." But they opened it, and saw that it contained 
 human remains. The prisoner then asked them to let him go, 
 and he would give them 100 or 200. The police then took 
 him and the parcels back to the cab, placed them in it, and 
 drove to the police station. There Inspector Fox received them, 
 and by his direction the parcels were taken into the yard and 
 
 223
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 Lord Chief opened. They were found to contain the fragments of a human 
 Justice }x>dy, severed from each other in a rude way by an axe or 
 chopper. The head was severed from the trunk, and so were 
 the four limbs. The legs had been divided at the knees, but 
 the feet remained attached to the legs. The hands were 
 severed at the wrists. The body had thus been broken into 
 ten pieces. Inspector Fox asked the prisoner where he got 
 the parcels, and he said that a gentleman had given them to 
 him. When asked his address, he gave that of Mr. Martin, 
 adding that, if Mr. Martin was sent for, the prisoner would be 
 willing to give a full account of how he became possessed of 
 this body. Accordingly, Mr. Martin was sent for, and he 
 came over in the evening. 
 
 In the meantime Inspector Fox went off with Stokes to 215 
 Whitechapel Road, and, obtaining the assistance of another 
 policeman, Newman, and a lantern, the first thing they found 
 was a spade and a hatchet or chopper. The spade was lying 
 exposed, but the chopper was wrapped up in a piece of news- 
 paper. The chopper appeared to have some matter attached 
 to it, which created the unpleasant smell that comes from 
 animal remains in a state of decomposition. The spade, when 
 examined, was found to have been recently used, and it had 
 human hairs sticking to it. The officers then searched, and 
 by the light they carried they perceived, on looking closely, 
 that at the back part of the warehouse, which had formerly been 
 the paint room, a portion of the floor seemed raised from its 
 proper level. They also found that from that peculiar spot 
 there proceeded a very strong smell. They then tore up the 
 flooring, and under it they found the grave in which this body 
 had been beyond all question placed, and from which it had 
 been recently disinterred. In the earth of this grave the 
 officers found mixed a quantity of chloride of lime. The next 
 day further researches were made, and other things were 
 discovered. 
 
 So matters stood on llth September, when the remains were 
 removed from No. 215 by the prisoner Henry Wainwright. 
 They had been cut to pieces by some rough instrument, and a 
 chopper was found, which would be just the sort of instrument 
 with which such work could be done. The chopper had 
 matter, apparently human remains, adhering to it, and that 
 chopper had been got the day before by the prisoner Thomas 
 Wainwright, and no doubt had been passed to Henry. 
 Besides this chopper they found a spade, with which the grave 
 had been opened. Finding this spade, it was seen that it had 
 human hair adhering to it. This, and the fact that the chopper 
 224
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 and the spade had been purchased by the brother for the Lord Chief 
 
 prisoner Henry Wainwright, taken together with the whole Justlce 
 
 circumstances, cannot, I think, leave any doubt in the mind 
 
 of any one that the body between the 10th and the llth had 
 
 been disinterred, and that it had been chopped up by the 
 
 prisoner. There was the chopper, there were the different 
 
 parts of the body severed one from the other, and the stones 
 
 of the yard of the warehouse on which the body had been out 
 
 up bore witness to the fact, for there were pieces chipped out 
 
 quite recently, which could only have been effected by such an 
 
 instrument. Therefore we have facts on evidence which cannot 
 
 leave the shadow of a doubt in the mind of any reasonable or 
 
 rational man that the prisoner Henry Wainwright took up the 
 
 body from the place where it had been hidden, that he cut it 
 
 to pieces, and removed it from the place which had evidently 
 
 been its hiding-place to another. 
 
 I will now bring to your recollection the statement made by 
 Henry Wainwright at the police office. You know he had 
 desired that Mr. Martin should be sent for. He came, and then 
 the prisoner makes the following statement : ' ' A gentleman 
 known to me for some time by meeting him at public-houses 
 asked me if I wished to earn a pound or two. I said, ' Yes, I 
 am always ready to make money,' or something of that sort. 
 He said, ' I can put a sovereign or two in your way.' I 
 inquired, ' How?' He said, 'By taking two parcels over to 
 the Borough.' I said it was a big price for so small a job. He 
 said, ' Take them over; ask no questions; and here's a couple 
 of sovereigns for you.' I said, ' If you make it 5 I will.' 
 He then agreed to give me 3, and told me to take them to 
 the Hen and Chickens, an empty house in the Borough. He 
 brought them to me, put them on the pavement, and I brought 
 them over. That is my account of the possession of these 
 parcels. ' ' 
 
 I need not point out that that statement was altogether 
 untrue. At that time the prisoner did not know that Stokes 
 had discovered his secret, and had revealed it, nor was he aware 
 that Stokes had come to the station, and was in communication 
 with the office, or he probably would not have ventured the 
 statement, which required only Stokes's evidence at once to 
 destroy. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I enter upon another part of the case. 
 The woman was found with two bullets in her brain, and one 
 lodged in the pad she wore at the back of her head. Besides 
 that, there was a cut extending from the centre of the throat 
 across to the angle of the lower jaw, which had severed all 
 
 Q 225
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief the vessels and tissues, and had gone right through to the 
 Justice vertebrae of the neck, and which, therefore, must have been a 
 cut which required very considerable force. The great proba- 
 bility is that the murderer, finding that the first shot did not 
 take effect, brought the pistol round, fired it again, just behind 
 the right ear, and then, not certain that even that would 
 effectually and at once destroy life, fired a third shot. Then 
 we have the cut across the throat. Well, then, we start with 
 the fact that by some cause, either the combined pistol shots 
 and the cut in the throat, or by either of them singly, life was 
 taken; and the question arises, by whom was the act done? If 
 you are satisfied that the person whose remains were found 
 was killed by murderous violence, and you find these remains 
 in the hands of the prisoner Henry Wainwright, what is the 
 presumption that fairly and properly arises, when you find the 
 body in the hands of an individual who is concealing it? Must 
 not in all common sense the presumption be that he who is in 
 possession of the body was the murderer, unless he can give you 
 some reasonable explanation of circumstances so fraught with 
 suspicion, and leading, according to all practical reasoning, 
 to such presumption? What was the place from which this 
 body was taken? Not its proper and natural grave, but a secret 
 grave in these premises. Can it be reasonably doubted that the 
 grave was made for the purpose of concealing that body from 
 the sight of human eye and human knowledge ? 
 
 I listened with painful anxiety to the address of the counsel 
 for Henry Wainwright to hear if he could offer any explanation 
 which would be satisfactory to thinking men to account for his 
 taking up that body from the grave in which it had been 
 deposited to transfer it to another place, it being plain that the 
 purpose of the transfer was for the concealment of the corpse. 
 One explanation, if explanation it can be called, was offered; 
 it was the vague, and what under the circumstances I must call 
 the wild suggestion, that the woman whose body was found 
 had committed suicide. I pointed out to you yesterday that it 
 is impossible to suppose that a person who was going to shoot 
 herself a woman with a, quantity of hair at the back of her 
 head, should begin by firing at that part. Certainly it is 
 possible, but not likely; and I think it is far more reasonable 
 that the shot was fired from behind with the belief that the 
 bullet would penetrate the skull by a person approaching from 
 behind, rather than a person intending to shoot herself pointing 
 the pistol at a point where the shot would be less likely to 
 penetrate. 
 
 226
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 Then there is another fact. This is one of three bullets, Lord Chief 
 and it has been said that if it did not take life instantaneously Juitlee 
 she might have cut her throat afterwards. It might be so. 
 But every one knows that if you fire a bullet into the brain 
 it will cause death. Here there were two bullets in the brain. 
 Then we have the gash in the throat. If the surgeons are 
 right in saying that that was not done at the cutting up of the 
 body, but was done at the time, although it might not have 
 been done during life, it is quite clear that a person killing 
 herself by a pistol bullet could not cut her own throat after- 
 wards. Gentlemen, you must form your own judgment whether 
 you think this could by any human possibility have been a case 
 of suicide. 
 
 There is a further observation; if it was a case of suicide, 
 the person committing the rash and fatal deed must be pro- 
 vided with the instrument with which this was done. The body 
 was buried in the warehouse of No. 215, which was at the time 
 empty, no one living in it. If this woman destroyed herself 
 by those shots, she must have taken the revolver or pistol there 
 with her. If, indeed, the death had occurred at No. 84, where the 
 prisoner kept a revolver, it might have been said that the 
 revolver happened -to be lying there, and happening to be 
 charged, this woman in a moment of distraction seized the 
 weapon and fired. But it was not done at No. 84, where the 
 revolver was, but at No. 215, where the revolver was not. 
 As I said, whoever took that revolver there, the person who fired 
 it must have taken it. Whoever took it there cannot have taken 
 it in order that suicide might be committed. Under those 
 circumstances, are you of opinion that this was a case of 
 suicide? If not, we have to inquire further whose hand it was. 
 
 Now, I approach a very important point in this case. What 
 were the personal characteristics of Harriet Lane? Slender 
 build, slender limba; small hands and feet, but not too small 
 for her stature and weight. The remains of the body found in 
 like manner indicated all these points. The next point is the 
 comparison of the hair. There is no doubt, making some little 
 allowance for exposure and the effects of chloride of lime, the 
 hair of the remains is the colour of that of Harriet Lane. 
 TlnMi are there any marks whicli may assist us? First, there 
 is the decayed tooth. It has been proved abundantly thai 
 Harriet Lane had a tooth next the eye tooth which 
 decayed and eaten away almost to the bone, and, being next 
 iln -ye tooth, when she laughed or smiled strongly this tooth 
 was perceptible. When we see a beautiful mouth of teeth, 
 
 227
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief and one of them is decayed and black, the disfigurement is 
 Justice always observed; and so, when these remains were shown to 
 the witnesses for identification, they at once looked for the 
 decayed tooth. When her father came to view the body and 
 had seen it, a profound emotion overcame him, and he at once 
 said it was his daughter. But you must not attach any import- 
 ance to such a circumstance, or that there is any instinctive 
 impulse which may be depended upon in such a case. We 
 must have something more substantial and more certain; and 
 so, when the old man was asked if his daughter had any marks on 
 her body, he at once said she had the scar of a burn, which 
 was caused by a poker falling out of the fire. The surgeons 
 had not perceived this. The body w r as covered with a greasy 
 exudation, which did not make it very pleasant to handle; 
 but when they heard that Harriet Lane had a scar, they looked 
 for it, and, sure enough, they found it. When the grease was 
 removed there was the scar. 
 
 Now, is there anything else which makes the inference drawn 
 from these facts, if conclusive, nugatory? Harriet Lane 
 had had two children, and it, of course, becomes an important 
 inquiry whether the remains were those of a woman who had 
 borne children or not. We have the evidence of Mr. Larkin 
 and of Mr. Bond in the affirmative. 
 
 Let me now come to a second heading of the evidence, and 
 that is her dress. Harriet Lane was in the habit of wearing 
 a pad, made out of the rolls which we see in the shop windows, 
 fixed on the back of her head, and on this she was in the habit 
 of sticking an immense quantity of hairpins and frizzing her 
 hair over this pad. A pad was found attached to the head of 
 the deceased woman, and it corresponds in colour. Mr. Larkin, 
 who undid it and took the bullet out of it, says that it was 
 filled " with an immense quantity of hairpins," sufficient to 
 turn the bullet at all events, to diminish its force and prevent 
 it penetrating the head. That, again, is worthy of considera- 
 tion. There was a velvet band found. Harriet Lane used to 
 wear a velvet band, and though a particular velvet band cannot 
 be identified as compared with another, here you have all these 
 various items corresponding in the two cases. Then we come 
 to a by no means unimportant article, namely, the two jet 
 buttons. Miss Wilmore told you that on the day Harriet Lane 
 went away from Sidney Square she had a dress to which was 
 attached a long series of black jet buttons, and that two which 
 were not required were put away into the stay-box. Well, two 
 black jet buttons were found on the ash heap at No. 215, within 
 
 228
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 two yards of the grave from which the body was disinterred. Lord Chief 
 When these are compared with the buttons from the stay-box Justlce 
 there is the most perfect similarity found between them. They 
 are, in fact, evidently buttons of the same manufacture. 
 
 That is the dismal evidence offered to you to satisfy you that 
 this was her body. Besides that, there is what I may call the 
 indirect evidence that is, the general considerations resulting 
 from the history of the case. Of course, the most important 
 of those circumstances is the fact that Harriet Lane had dis- 
 appeared. She was attached to her relatives and friends. She 
 was to some extent fond of her children; but from llth Septem- 
 ber to the present she has never inquired after relatives, 
 friends, or children. Where is she? That question is very 
 properly asked, and unless you can suppose her to be somewhere 
 where the tidings of this trial cannot reach her, it is impossible 
 to suppose that she would allow the man with whom she had 
 lived on conjugal terms, and the father of her two children, 
 to suffer what may be the fatal consequences of her disappear- 
 ance. One can conceive no motive for conduct so unnatural 
 as that she should not come forward if she is alive. It is said 
 that she may be in the wilds of Australia ; but is it at all likely, 
 so long as it could be supposed that she had gone away with 
 Edward Frieake, and that Frieake had made the condition of 
 his maintaining her in affluence and comfort, that she should 
 cut off all connection with her relatives, friends, and children? 
 One can understand that worldly interests may have pre- 
 dominated over natural affection. Therefore if we can believe 
 that there was an Edward Frieake with whom she had gone off 
 who made that condition, she might have cut herself off from 
 all her friends. If you should come to the conclusion that 
 Frieake was a delusion, what motive could have pressed upon her 
 mind to induce her to avoid all communication with her friends ? 
 That makes the theory of Frieake one of the material matters 
 of the case. If this woman had been killed by some one else, 
 the prisoner would not have been at the trouble of burying her 
 in the first instance, or of removing her after. 
 
 Now, I come to the case against the prisoner in the event 
 of your being of opinion that this was the body of Harriet Lane. 
 In the first place, we found that this body was originally buried 
 upon the premises belonging to the prisoner, or which had 
 belonged to him, and over which he retained control. What is 
 the fair and legitimate inference to be drawn upon the body 
 being there? Is it not that the body was killed there? For if 
 it was not killed there, why should it be taken there to be
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief buried ? Why should the danger and suspicion be incurred 1 
 Justice g ut -f j^ wag kiu^ there, there was even- reason why it should 
 be buried there, because there would have been the same danger 
 of transferring the body to another place. On the day before 
 Harriet Lane disappeared, the prisoner purchased a quantity of 
 chloride of lime. A grave is found full of chloride of lime; a 
 body is found covered with it. Where did the chloride of lime 
 come from? By whom was it used? It must have been used by 
 the person who buried her. Was it the prisoner? If so, he 
 was the person who buried her. If it was not so used, what 
 became of it? He said it was to go to Southend, and the learned 
 counsel for the defence said the prisoner's books were to be had, 
 and it was possible, if they looked therein, a customer for the 
 chloride of lime would be found at Southend. But, alas! if 
 this had been sent to a customer at Southend, it would have 
 been easy to evoke the assistance of that customer, and if there 
 were any entry in the books, is it probable that any one would 
 have known that better than the man who entered it? We 
 could have had these books before us, and so have got rid of the 
 truth of the terrible fact that chloride of lime was purchased 
 on the 10th, and that the body buried in the prisoner's premises 
 is alleged to be the person who disappeared on the 1 1th. 
 
 Now comes this additional question of the method of her 
 death. She was killed by having three shots fired. She in all 
 human probability would not have had an instrument by which 
 those shots could have been fired. Were they fired from a 
 revolver? A single pistol, you know, would hardly have 
 served the purpose of firing three shots, not even if it were a 
 double-barrelled one, because it would have to be reloaded. 
 The probability is that these three shots were fired in succes- 
 sion. Unfortunately, we are aware the prisoner had a revolver, 
 and we know that under the stress of circumstances in July he 
 wanted to pawn it for so small a sum as 50s., and could not get 
 that amount, and the revolver was put back into his desk. 
 We know also that he possessed cartridges, so that he had the 
 means of killing this woman in the way she appears to have been 
 killed. Three shots were fired, and Harriet Lane disappeared 
 on the same day upon which it was alleged these shots were 
 discharged. 
 
 Putting these facts together, they certainly are formidable, 
 and the more so if it can be shown with certainty that the 
 dates of the shots and the disappearance were the same. The 
 evidence of the two Kays and Wiseman went to establish that 
 proposition. 
 
 230
 
 Mr. Douglas Straight.
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 Do all the facts which I have at too great length and too Lord Chief 
 great minuteness brought to your attention lead to the conclusion Justlco 
 that this woman, who was murdered by some one, fell by the 
 hand of the prisoner? If upon that consideration you entertain 
 any reasonable doubt, it is your duty to give Henry Wainwright 
 the benefit of that doubt. If it be one which you feel, as 
 rational, thinking minds, you cannot reasonably entertain, if 
 the facts taken together lead you irresistibly to the conclusion 
 that the woman fell by the prisoner Henry Wainwright's hand, 
 then, sad and painful as may be the duty, you, upon the oath 
 you have taken truly to try between the Crown and the prisoner 
 at the bar, must do that duty sternly and unflinchingly. 
 
 I have now some final observations to make upon the case 
 of the other prisoner Thomas Wainwright. It would be dan- 
 gerous, indeed, from the circumstances to which I have called 
 your attention, to infer that Thomas Wainwright entered into a 
 scheme with his brother to pave the way for the destruction of 
 this woman ; and unless you see your way clearly to the double 
 fact that when the character of Frieake was first assumed, the 
 brother contemplated the subsequent murder, and also that 
 Thomas Wainwright entered into a scheme with him, and 
 promised him his assistance in order to lead people to think 
 that by first assuming the name of Frieake, and getting up an 
 intimacy with her under that name, in order that when she was 
 afterwards destroyed it might be said that she had gone off 
 "on the spree" with Frieake, there is an end of that part of 
 the case, and you cannot find him guilty of being an accessory 
 before the murder. Then comes the question and a very 
 serious one for him whether he was an accessory after the 
 fact? That rests upon two or three considerations. In the first 
 place, it is quite clear that he lent himself to a scheme for 
 turning aside inquiry by pretending that she had gone off; but 
 it does not necessarily follow, even assuming that by this time- 
 Henry Wainwright had destroyed the woman, that Thomas was 
 aware of the fact. You must be satisfied that in all these things 
 in which he is implicated he was aware that murder had been 
 committed, and that he intended to assist his brother in con- 
 cealing that fact. If the evidence leads you irresistibly to that 
 conclusion, of course that must be your verdict; but, as I said 
 before, you must be clearly of opinion that he was not the mere 
 creature and innocent tool of his brother, and that he had full 
 knowledge of the guilt of his brother, supposing that guilt to 
 be established. In order to find him guilty of being an accessory 
 after the fact, you must feel certain that he knew of the murder, 
 
 231
 
 The Wain wrights. 
 
 Lord Chief and lent himself to the assistance of his brother, in order to 
 Justice avert from the head of that unfortunate man the consequences 
 which would attach to the discovery. Now, here you must 
 pause to consider whether you think the evidence before you is 
 sufficient to lead you to the conclusion that he knew of the 
 murder. If you think he did, you must find him guilty; but, 
 on the other hand, if you entertain any rational doubt on the 
 matter, you must give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he 
 is not guilty. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, the case is. now in your hands. Of 
 one thing I am quite certain, and that is, that you 
 will discharge your duty to the best of your ability, and to 
 the satisfaction of your consciences. You will let the 
 world know that never did a jury give more devoted and un- 
 divided attention to a case than you have done during this pro- 
 tracted trial, with a desire to arrive at a just and righteous 
 conclusion. 
 
 The jury retired to consider their verdict at 3.45. 
 
 Verdict and Sentence. 
 
 The jury returned into Court at 4.38, and, having taken 
 their seats, they were called upon by Mr. Avory, the Clerk of 
 Arraigns, to answer to their names. This ceremony having 
 been completed, Mr. Avory put the question " Have you 
 agreed upon your verdict?" to which the formal reply was 
 given, "We have." 
 
 Mr. AVOET Do you find that the prisoner Henry Wain- 
 wright is guilty or not guilty of the indictment, which charges 
 him with wilful murder? 
 
 The FOREMAN We do all say he is guilty. 
 
 Mr. AVORT Do you say that Thomas Wainwright is guilty 
 of being an accessory before or after the fact? 
 
 The FOREMAN Not guilty before, but guilty after. 
 
 Mr. AVORT And that, you say, is the verdict of you all? 
 
 The FOREMAN It is. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Call upon them. 
 
 Mr. AVORT Prisoner at the bar, you have been indicted for 
 the crime of wilful murder, and to that indictment you have 
 pleaded not guilty, and have thrown yourself upon your 
 country. That country has found you guilty. What have you 
 to say why judgment should not be pronounced against you? 
 
 232
 
 Verdict and Sentence. 
 
 HENRY WAINWRIOHT I should like to make one or two 
 observations, and they shall be very short indeed. I have first 
 to express my deep obligation for the untiring energy and 
 ability of my counsel during this protracted trial. I thank 
 him, and all who have assisted him, deeply. My 'thanks are 
 due to the very many friends who have, with such promptitude 
 and alacrity, come forward to give me their valuable and 
 substantial assistance. I have not been able to reply to all 
 the persons 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I cannot allow you to make a 
 speech. You can only reply to the question whether you have 
 anything to say why sentence should not be passed. 
 
 HENRY WAINWRIQHT Then I will only say, standing as I do 
 now upon the brink of eternity and in the presence of the 
 God before whom I shall shortly appear, that I swear that I 
 am not the murderer of the remains found in my possession. I 
 swear that I have not buried these remains, and the proof that 
 I did not exhume those mutilated remains has been proved 
 before you by witnesses. I have been guilty of great im- 
 morality; I have been guilty of many indiscretions; but for 
 the crime of which I have been brought in guilty I leave this 
 dock with a calm and quiet conscience. My lord, I thank you 
 for your kindness in allowing me to say these few words. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Prisoner at the bar, you have been 
 found guilty, in my opinion upon the clearest and most con- 
 clusive evidence, of the murder of Harriet Louisa Lane, which 
 lias been laid to your charge. No one, I think, who has heard 
 this trial can entertain the slightest shadow of a doubt of your 
 guilt, and I can only deplore that, standing as you 
 surely are upon the brink of eternity, you should have 
 called God to witness the rash assertion which has 
 just issued from your lips. There can be no doubt 
 that you took the life of this poor woman, who had been 
 on the closest and most intimate terms of familiarity and 
 affection with you, who had been the mother of your children. 
 You inveigled her into the lone warehouse. The revolver was 
 not there before, but it must have been taken for the purpose, 
 and with that she was slain. The grave was dug there for her 
 remains, which were those you were removing when you were 
 arrested ; and about that no one can entertain the shadow of 
 doubt. It was a barbarous, cruel, inhuman, and cowardly act. 
 I do not wish to say anything to aggravate the position in 
 which you stand, nor dwell upon the enormity of your guilt, 
 further than by way of rousing you to a sense of the position 
 which you now occupy, in which the hope of earthly mercy is 
 
 233
 
 The Wainwrights. 
 
 cut off. The only hope and consolation you can have is in the 
 future, where truth cannot be mistaken, where no assertion of 
 yours will stand you in any stead, though where, if you seek 
 for mercy, it must be through sincere repentance for the crime 
 which you have undoubtedly committed. I have to warn you 
 against any delusive hope of mercy here as long as the law 
 exists which says that he who takes the life of a fellow-creature 
 with malicious aforethought shall answer for it with his own. 
 This is a case to which it would be impossible that mercy could 
 be extended ; therefore, prepare for the doom which awaits you. 
 I have now only to pass upon you the dreadful sentence of the 
 law, which is that you be taken from hence to the place whence 
 you came, thence to a legal place of execution, to be there 
 hanged by the neck till you shall be dead; that your body be 
 buried within the precincts of the gaol in which you shall 
 be last confined after your conviction; and may the Lord have 
 mercy upon your soul. 
 
 Thomas George Wainwright, the jury have, in my opinion 
 correctly, acquitted you of the heavier crime of having entered 
 into the scheme conceived by your brother with the view to the 
 murder of Harriet Lane. Their opinion, and they have pro- 
 nounced it by their verdict, is that, having become aware of 
 the crime committed by your brother, you lent yourself to assist 
 him in its concealment. No fraternal affection, no regard or 
 sympathy which one brother should have for another, can 
 excuse you in the eyes of the law for assisting him in his 
 endeavour to escape the consequences of justice. Your offence, 
 although lighter, and one far short of being an accessory before 
 the act, is one which ought to be punished with proper severity ; 
 for through the concealment of such crimes they have sometimes 
 been perpetrated with impunity and safety, and human life 
 thereby endangered. I am ready to believe that you were 
 actuated under the influence which your brother had over you, 
 without which you might not have done what you did. I have 
 taken that into consideration, as I believe you to have been his 
 dupe and his tool, and he has in some degree your crime to 
 answer for practically as well as his own. You yielded weakly 
 and wrongly to his influence and his greater age; but although 
 that does not in any way mitigate the character of the offence, 
 I think, on the whole, that justice will not be satisfied with a 
 less punishment than I am about to inflict. The sentence of 
 the Court is that you be imprisoned and kept in penal servitude 
 for seven years. 
 
 After the prisoners had been removed from the bar, the 
 LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said I think it right to exercise a power 
 
 234
 
 Verdict and Sentence. 
 
 which I have vested in me, sitting here upon this trial, by Act 
 of Parliament, to order that a reward be given from the proper 
 fund to the man Stokes. His conduct and his energy on the 
 occasion of these remains being removed from WMtechapel 
 to the Borough, and his perseverance in following up the cab 
 in which those remains were being conveyed, have in realit} 
 led to the discovery of this crime and the conviction of the 
 offenders concerned in it. I shall direct, therefore, that he 
 shall receive from the proper fund the sum of 30.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.
 
 A 000 021 759 6