Bad Companions E-Book

Kate Clarke

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

This book features the cases of six London women, each very different in temperament, age and status, who resorted to murder. Their reasons were varied: in the case of the surly maid Kate Webster, sheer temper seems the likely cause; avarice seemed to spur Catherine Wilson to murder an estimated seven times; desperation to pay for the upkeep of her two-year-old son lay behind Sarah Drake's crime; seductive young cook Eliza Fenning was accused of serving poison with her dumplings; evil mistress Elizabeth Brownrigg whipped her servant to death in a home-built dungeon; and finally, the vicious Catherine Hayes persuaded two lovers – one of whom was her own son – to decapitate her husband in an orgy of violence. This fascinating study explores these cases in depth, and reveals whether these women were tragic, misunderstood or just plain wicked.

Leseprobe

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My special thanks to the crime-writer Mark Ripper (M.W. Oldridge) for his support, expertise and invaluable assistance whilst researching this book. Also to Cate Ludlow at The History Press for her unfailing enthusiasm and understanding of the theme of the book.

The following crime-writers have been generous with their help and encouragement: Martin Edwards, Douglas d’Enno, and Richard and Molly Whittington-Egan.

I am also grateful to the following for their support: Anne Dewell; Sasha and Anil Mahendra; Andy Dixon; Jim Rogers; Alan Rosethorne; Chris Horlock; Dorothy Allam; Milly Eagle; Noelle Beales; Derek Addyman; and Anne Brichto.

CONTENTS

Title

Acknowledgements

Introduction

One

Catherine Hayes, 1726

‘A vile woman, scarcely to be paralleled’

Two

Elizabeth Brownrigg, 1767

‘Wicked beyond belief’

Three

Eliza Fenning, 1815

‘Spiteful minx or tragic martyr?’

Four

Sarah Drake, 1850

‘The miserable creature in the dock’

Five

Catherine Wilson, 1862

‘A classic serial poisoner’

Six

Kate Webster, 1879

‘A truly appalling crime’

Bibliography

Plates

Copyright

INTRODUCTION

Most people find murder interesting; is it, perhaps, because the underlying passions that can result in murder are common to us all, though in the case of murderers they have become magnified, distorted and out of control? And is it our innate fear of violent death that enables us to so readily identify with the victim? Here lies the dual fascination with murder, expressed in the following words by the late lawyer and criminologist William Roughead:

Murder has a magic of its own, its peculiar alchemy. Touched by that crimson wand, things base and sordid, things ugly and of ill report, are transformed into matters wondrous, weird and tragical. Dull streets become fraught with mystery, commonplace dwellings assume sinister aspects, everyone concerned, howsoever plain and ordinary, is invested with a new value and importance as the red light falls upon each.

London is the location for the six cases of murder highlighted in this book, and each of the women involved had one thing in common – they were all accused of murder or attempted murder and tried in the city’s most famous courthouse, the Old Bailey. It would be impossible, in a book of this length, to highlight the many women in London who have committed equally vicious crimes, many of which may well have passed inadequately recorded, or not at all. It must be said, however, that despite the violence suffered by so many women, murders by men have always far outnumbered those committed by women.

In order to gain a little understanding of the women in this book, it is helpful to know something of the conditions in which they lived and the pressures, deprivations and limitations that dominated their lives in Georgian and Victorian London.

In 1891 it was estimated that, country-wide, more than a million – that is, one in three women between the ages of fifteen and twenty – were in domestic service; kitchen maids and maids-of-all work (sometimes referred to as ‘slaveys’) were paid between £6 and £12 a year. ‘Tweenies’, maids who helped other domestics, moving between floors as and when they were needed, were paid even less. There was a tax on indoor male servants – and their wages were considerably higher – so only the wealthy could afford to employ them. Women servants were cheap and generally more easily dominated and kept in their place. However, the close proximity of mistress and maids – interdependent yet still strangers under one roof – often led to squabbles and petulance – especially if the mistress’s expectations were too high and the maid was overworked and probably feeling alienated and homesick. Despite the potential for violent outbursts only a comparatively small number of murders were committed by servants, pushed to the limit of their endurance by the drudgery of menial work, extremely long hours and meagre pay – that, and harsh treatment at the hands of their employers, sometimes led to retaliation and, in some cases, to murder.

The mistreatment of servants was commonplace, and young maids were especially vulnerable to being sexually exploited. Once hired, they found themselves in households in which a strict and unbreachable hierarchy below stairs ensured that they stayed on the lowest rung of that society. In 1740 Mary Branch and her mother were executed for beating a servant girl to death and, on the gallows, she admitted that she had considered all servants as ‘slaves, vagabonds and thieves’.

In addition to severe chastisement in their place of work, tragically, many young women in domestic service were severely punished by the law, sometimes with their lives, for giving birth to illegitimate babies. Very often, in sheer desperation, they disposed of these new-borns in privies, ditches and on dung-heaps – and when found out, were tried by male judges and jurors. Although some were treated mercifully, others were hanged for their actions.

The briefest study of court records, the Newgate Calendar, contemporary newspaper reports or similar publications clearly illustrates the extent of the violence regularly meted out, not only to servants but also to women and children, by fathers, husbands and lovers. The ineffectual, amateur and largely unaccountable law enforcers, who were open to bribery and corruption; the ducking and diving to dodge the law in order to make some sort of living, one way or another; illiteracy, which made record-keeping random and incomplete; the frequency of premature death of women in childbirth, and the high mortality rate amongst infants – all these factors helped to mask and conceal criminal activity, even murder.

The alternative to a life of domestic drudgery for many women, ranging in age from those in early pubescence to those well past middle-age, was prostitution, especially for those females raised in institutions and without family support. Some were unable to find husbands to support them, whilst others may have been unwilling to become a chattel for life.

Domestic service was a precarious living, as girls could be sacked immediately for breaking house rules or committing some other misdemeanour. Once employed, young women would arrive with their boxes, containing their work clothes and undergarments, possibly a Bible and perhaps a few personal mementos of their lives before entering service. If a maid displeased her mistress, her box might well be retained after dismissal – possibly to make up a deficit from real or imagined thieving. However, without a box and a ‘character’, a written recommendation or reference, it was extremely difficult to find another position. Without the prospect of further employment some servants chose to become prostitutes; others, whilst still in domestic employment, would sometimes offer themselves in return for trinkets and small gifts – these were known as ‘dolly mops’.

A few cases have been recorded of a client frequenting a brothel only to be confronted by either his cook, his children’s nanny – she had ample opportunity to attract admirers whilst pushing infants in perambulators through London’s parks and pleasure gardens – or a parlour maid, supplementing her meagre wages with a little ‘dolly mopping’ on the side. The mutual embarrassment can be imagined.

The number of prostitutes working in London in the nineteenth century was estimated at many thousands but, by its nature, the sex trade was clandestine, transitory and exploitative and it was therefore impossible to arrive at a true figure. With so many prostitutes at work in the city, perspective clients could purchase catalogues listing the women – and their specialities – available for hire, in Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies and other similar publications. Those at the top of the pile, sometimes referred to as either ‘gay’ women or ‘unfortunates’, paraded in their brightly coloured clothing – but without hats – around the theatres along the Strand, Haymarket, and Covent Garden; the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens were also extremely popular for business. But many more, women who were perhaps less appealing, were reduced to standing on murky street corners and wandering the dark alleys between the squalid tenements in the poorer districts of the city, plying their trade as best they could, and, as often as not, vulnerable to violent attack.

According to a report written in 1899 by The National Vigilance Association, entitled Inquiries Concerning Female Labour in the Metropolis, many young girls fell victim to agencies falsely luring them – including many from Germany – with the promise of domestic employment, only to find themselves forced to work in one of the city’s many brothels – such as Mrs Harris’s establishment in Great Tichfield Street, in Central London. Especially targeted were the droves of young, naïve girls coming into London from the countryside, or from abroad; they were frequently preyed upon by procurers employed by the brothel keepers. In 1731, Mother Needham, notorious for trafficking young country girls into prostitution, had been put in a pillory at the corner of St James Street and Park Place and pelted with rocks and other missiles for a period of two days, after which she died of her injuries.

The report also published lists of names and addresses of bona-fide householders throughout London who were offering work for domestic servants.

Christians of every persuasion attempted to address the problem. Midnight Mission Meetings were arranged in premises in the Strand to coincide with prostitutes leaving the theatres, music halls and taverns at midnight. In return for giving up their way of life, they were offered light refreshments, some intensive sermonising and a twelve-month rehabilitation in a Lock Asylum, learning to perfect their needlework and housewifery skills. It was noted by an observer at one of these meetings that this option was seldom met with any enthusiasm.

Many similar charitable schemes were launched in London to rescue these girls. The Female Servants’ Home Society was one of many; also The Female Aid Society, established in 1836. It provided three ‘safe’ houses and, with a certain sanctimonious censure, graded the rescued women in the following manner: one in New Ormond Street, Bedford Row, catering for ‘young, friendless servants of good character’; a second house in Southampton Row for ‘respectable servants out of a place’; and thirdly, a house in White Lion Street for ‘the fallen’. It was estimated that The Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants also helped to protect some 8,000 ‘slaveys’ by vetting households offering work.

And of course, from 1840 until shortly before his death in 1898, William Gladstone and others like him were making nightly forays through the city streets, gathering up ‘fallen women’ in an attempt to save them from degradation and disease.

The six women featured in this book had a chequered history in this respect. Two, Sarah Drake and Eliza Fenning, chose not to prostitute themselves, preferring to work in domestic service. Catherine Hayes and Elizabeth Brownrigg were supported by hard-working, successful husbands, so didn’t need to – though in her youth, Hayes had been a prostitute (and even in later life was regarded as promiscuous). Catherine Wilson found a more congenial way of acquiring money – poison. As for Kate Webster, although she did occasionally seek domestic work, she had served time for prostitution and would have been quite willing to turn a trick or two whenever her coffers threatened to seriously restrict her alcohol consumption.

Murder is somehow more disturbing when committed by women. The women who feature in this book were very different in age, background and circumstances, but they all ended up charged with murder or attempted murder, and facing the grim prospect of the death penalty. Their stories clearly illustrate the part played by poverty and ignorance and – in at least two of the murders – extreme violence unleashed by drink.

Catherine Hayes was a vicious wife and adulterer who persuaded two of her lovers – one of which was her son – to murder her husband and cut off his head. She was sentenced to die at the stake for ‘petty treason’ and was the last woman to suffer that fate. She was burned to death in 1726, without, due to the executioner’s fumbling with the burning rope, the benefit of being strangled first.

Elizabeth Brownrigg was a sadistic, vicious woman who beat three of her maids without mercy – all her venom was used on Mary Clifford, a fourteen-year-old maid from the parish poor house, with the result that she died of her injuries.

The year 1815 saw the tragic case of Eliza Fenning, a young cook, who was found guilty of the attempted poisoning of three members of the Turner family, for whom she worked, in Chancery Lane, London. The guilt of the other four women was proved beyond doubt, but in the case of Eliza Fenning – accused of mixing deadly poison into the dumplings she made for dinner, despite the fact that none of the recipients died – there was, at the time of her trial, deep public unease about her subsequent execution, and many notable social commentators, including Charles Dickens (who learned of her case some years later), were absolutely convinced of her innocence.

Sarah Drake was a young, unmarried mother, working as a cook and housekeeper for a family in Upper Harley Street, London, in 1849. Unable to keep up the payments for the care of her two-year-old son, Lewis, she killed him and sent his body in a box to her family in the country, hoping they would give him a decent burial. She had previously done the same with one – and possibly two – of her other babies.

A few years later, in 1862, Catherine Wilson, working as a nurse and housekeeper to a Mrs Soames, in Bedford Square, was charged with murdering at least five people; she was a calculating serial poisoner, classic in her methods, who killed for one reason – money.

Finally, the surly maid, Kate Webster, well-liked by her friends, but resentful of authority and, when cornered, extremely violent, murdered and dismembered the body of her elderly mistress, Julia Thomas, and threw the box containing parts of the torso into the River Thames.

Although a span of more than a century lay between the first case in this book – beginning with Catherine Hayes in 1726 and ending with Kate Webster, in 1879 – not a great deal had changed to improve the lot of women who were destined to spend their lives as chattels. But radical change was on its way; the suffragettes were already taking action on behalf of women denied a voice. Their case was further strengthened when, thirty-four years after Kate Webster was hanged, the country was embroiled in the First World War and, with much of the male population called to arms, women began to leave domestic service and find alternative employment. Some trained as nurses or worked on the land, whilst others manned the vital munitions factories. Many chose to work in the cotton mills and other manufacturing industries that had emerged during the Industrial Revolution, and where they felt less demeaned and were better paid. There were far fewer opportunities, moreover, for covert acts of cruelty away from the closed worlds of the households in which they had previously served, and frequently suffered.

ONE

CATHERINE HAYES

‘A vile woman, scarcely to be paralleled’

On Saturday, 7 May 1726, two days before Mrs Catherine Hayes was due to be executed, a brief but damning summary of her life was published in the Ipswich Journal. It stated that, in 1690, Catherine Hayes (née Hall) ‘was born of an Adulterous and Wicked Mother, who dropt her, (a Branch of her Lustful Embraces) near Birmingham, in Warwickshire’.

When she was fifteen Catherine left home, intending to make her way to London. She was a good-looking girl and, it would seem, sexually mature, for before she had travelled far she met a group of army officers who persuaded her – with the promise of some gold pieces – to go with them to their quarters at Great Ombersley, in Worcestershire. She remained in their company for some time, mainly supplying sexual services but occasionally working as a general housemaid. When the officers grew tired of her she went back to Warwickshire, where, it was said, she ‘ran about the country like a distracted creature’.

At the age of twenty-three she met a gentleman farmer, Mr Hayes, who, ignoring the advice of his wife, took her into his house as a domestic servant. Mrs Hayes was right to be wary of Catherine, for she soon began an affair with one of the farmer’s two sons, twenty-one-year-old John Hayes, and they were secretly married at Worcester in 1713.

The article in the Ipswich Journal continued its account of the events that followed:

…but the Father endeavour’d all he could to prevent it, but to no effect, for she threaten’d to cut her Throat if he (John Hayes) did not marry her; on the Day they were marry’d she fell into the water and had been drowned if her husband had not waded after her. That same night, as soon as they went to bed, some officers, by her appointment, had him impressed (press-ganged) but his father got him his liberty, but she prevailed upon him to enlist and go with those officers to Spain, where she attended him, whether more for the love of the Officers than for him.

Whilst in Spain, the article concluded, ‘she acted all manner of Debauchery and Wickedness.’

Another account states that John Hayes enlisted and was sent to the Isle of Wight; it was then that his father paid £60 ‘to buy him out’. Although impressment – press-ganging – was a common form of enforced naval recruitment, the army also targeted the ‘able-bodied, idle and disorderly Persons’, usually men aged between eighteen and fifty-five ‘without lawful trade’. ‘Incorrigible rogues’, who had left their wives and children to the care of the parish, were also considered fair game.

Army life, however, ended when Mr Hayes, senior, bought his son’s freedom and provided the young couple with a cottage on his farm and a generous allowance.

However, by 1719, Catherine, after six years of marriage (during which, it was said, she took numerous lovers), grew restless and convinced her husband that they should move to London:

They came to London, and his Father dying left them some money, which they lent out in interest, but he found her guilty of many slippery tricks, never trusted her with the keys of the drawers, but she by many cunning stratagems often got some of his gold to supply the wants of those she liked best and this way she continued till the committing of the horrid fact.

John Hayes worked hard and prospered in London. He bought a house – part of which he rented out to lodgers – and set himself up as a chandler and coal merchant. The business proved profitable and, furthermore, Hayes continued to supplement his income as a pawn-broker and money-lender. Catherine was given a generous allowance – and yet she still berated her husband for not providing her with enough money to keep a carriage and employ servants. She was never satisfied, and reportedly nagged him constantly. Yet her harassment resulted not in more money but in her husband resorting to violence: he began beating her, and thereafter reduced, not increased, her allowance. She later complained that he ‘half-starved her’. Resentment continued to build in Catherine and she often cursed her husband, saying that ‘it was no more a sin to kill him than to kill a mad dog. Some time or other I will give him a jolt!’

Whether or not her scorn was well-deserved – he may well have been a thoroughly unpleasant person – it soon became evident that Catherine Hayes was a foul-mouthed scold who often belittled her husband in public and, moreover, quarrelled constantly with her neighbours. Perhaps to escape the ill-feeling his wife generated, they moved to premises in Tottenham Court Road, and from there to Tyburn Road, now known as Oxford Street.

In 1725 an eighteen-year-old tailor, Thomas Billings (who, it was later discovered, was actually Catherine’s illegitimate son), came to live with them – and he and Catherine soon embarked on a sexual relationship. Not only were the couple cuckolding John Hayes whenever he was away on business, but also the neighbours noticed that Catherine and Billings lived lavishly at his expense, indulging in riotous parties and prolonged drinking sprees. When he returned they wasted no time in telling Mr Hayes about his wife’s behaviour, and a fierce fight ensued. John beat her so violently that she was confined to bed for several days. This, no doubt, brought to a head Catherine’s hatred of her husband and engendered talk of ‘getting rid of him’ so that she and Billings could continue their incestuous relationship without restraint or censure.

It was at this point in the story that the third figure in the ensuing drama appeared. A butcher named Thomas Wood, a friend of John Hayes, arrived from Worcestershire (escaping, it seems, from the efforts of the army officers to get him to enlist). John Hayes gave him lodging, unaware that, within days, Catherine would not only be sleeping with him but also trying to persuade him to join in his murder. As a friend of John Hayes, Wood at first refused to become involved in their heinous plan – until, that is, Catherine told him that her husband was ‘an atheist, and had already been guilty of murdering two of his own children, one of whom he had buried under an apple-tree, and the other under a pear-tree’. He had also, she said, murdered a business rival. As an added incentive, Catherine promised to give him and Billings the £1,500 which she claimed she would inherit once her husband was dead.

On 1 March 1725, when Wood returned to London after a few days away, he found John Hayes, Catherine and Thomas Billings drinking together, already having consumed a guinea’s worth of liquor between them – though John Hayes boasted that he was not at all drunk. As part of the plan, Billings suggested that Hayes should prove to them that he could drink six bottles of mountain wine without getting drunk. If he did so, Billings promised, he would pay for the wine. The wager was agreed and the three went out to buy more drink, determined now to use this opportunity to carry out their murderous plan.

Catherine Hayes paid half a guinea for the wine for her husband while she and her two accomplices drank beer. Before long, John Hayes, well inebriated, began to dance around the room. Then he drank the remainder of the wine. Determined to render him completely helpless, Catherine sent out for another bottle of wine and watched him drink it before he fell senseless to the floor. He lay there for a while and then somehow managed to crawl into ‘another room and [throw] himself on a bed’.1

It was at this point that Thomas Billings entered the bedroom and attacked John Hayes with a hatchet, striking him so violently that his skull was broken. Hayes’s legs were hanging over the edge of the bed as the blow fell and, as the blows registered in his brain, his feet thumped repeatedly on the floor. This sound brought Wood into the room. Taking the hatchet from Billings, he delivered vicious blows (two); these blows finally killed the husband.

A fellow lodger, Mrs Springate, living in the room above, heard the thumping of Hayes’s feet on the floor and came down to complain that the noise had woken her and her family. Catherine managed to placate her by saying that they were entertaining some rowdy visitors: as they were just about to leave, the noise would soon stop.

By the time Catherine returned to the bedroom her husband was dead, and the room was extensively splattered with blood. The killers were now faced with a dilemma: what to do with the body? If they deposited it somewhere – as it was – someone might inconveniently identify him. It was Catherine who suggested that, to avoid detection, they should cut off his head. Her two collaborators were sickened by the dreadful prospect of beheading their former friend. However, as there seemed to be no alternative, they finally agreed to carry out this plan.

Catherine remained remarkably calm throughout the events that followed: she fetched a bucket, lit a candle and then watched as Billings supported her dead husband’s head while Wood began to saw through the neck with a kitchen knife. Catherine even positioned the bucket so that the severed head – and all the copious amount of blood issuing from it – would fall into it, thus reducing the staining to the floor. Once the head was in the bucket, they poured off all the blood into a sink. They then poured down several pails of water to sluice it out so that no trace of blood remained.

To further prevent identification of the remains, Catherine suggested that they boil the head to separate the flesh from the bone, but the three eventually decided that this process would take too long. Instead, it was agreed that their best option would be to throw the head into the River Thames and allow the tide to carry it away. With Billings carrying the severed head in the bucket, and accompanied by Wood, they made their way out of the house. While they were about their grisly business, Catherine made several trips down to street level and up again to the second floor, carrying buckets of water for scrubbing away all evidence of the murder.2

At this point Mrs Springate, still annoyed by the noise from below, called out to ask what was going on. Catherine replied that her husband was just leaving the house to embark on a journey; she then pretended to carry on a conversation with her husband, commiserating with him about having to set off at such a late hour. Mrs Springate heard her say, as though addressing her husband, ‘Watch out for brigands and dress warmly against these bitter March winds.’ While this deception was under way, Billings and Wood were clear of the house and making their way through the darkened streets to the banks of the River Thames, anxious to get rid of the head before daybreak.

It was their intention to dump the head in the river at Whitehall but, as the gates were shut, they hurried to the wharf at Horse Ferry, in Westminster. On seeing a watchman approaching, they panicked. While Billings held the bucket, Wood lifted out the head of John Hayes and threw it into the river, expecting it to be carried away by the tide – but it was not to be. They soon realised that in fact the tide was ebbing – and the head had landed in the mud. The two killers fled while the watchman, hearing the thud of something landing on the mud-bank, came to see what it was. He retrieved the head and took it to the authorities.

This account is from The British Gazetteer, dated 5 March 1726:

Last Wednesday morning at day-light, there was found in the dock before Mr Paul’s brewhouse, near the Horse-Ferry at Westminster, the head of a man, with brown curl’d hair, the Scull broke in two blaces [sic], and a large cut on each cheek; judg’d to be upwards of 30, and, by all circumstances, appearing to have been newly cut from off a living body; but by whom, or on what account, is yet a secret. There was found near it, a bloody pail; and some bargemen have since affirmed, that they saw two Ruffian-like fellows bring that pail to the water-side, and throw the head into the dock, and then run away. The head was the same day set up, and expos’d to publick view in St Margaret’s Church-Yard; to the end, that any one knowing the features, might give some Account of the person. Several houses in Tuttle Fields, and about Westminster, have likewise been searched for the body…

Billings and Wood, no doubt believing they had effectively disposed of the head, returned to the house where Catherine was waiting to commence concealment of the headless body. She suggested burying it but a box brought for that purpose was found to be too small. Wood used his butchering skills to dismember the body and pack it into the box, which was then left under the bed during the remainder of that night. The next morning, fearing to arouse suspicion if they were seen carrying a heavy box, they decided to transport the chopped-up corpse in a blanket. It must have been with great relief that Catherine watched as her lovers left the house with the remains of John Hayes; she was no doubt anticipating a life of new-found wealth, unfettered by a brutal and parsimonious husband. Once clear of the house, Billings and Wood hurried to a field in Marylebone and threw the bundle of body parts into a pond.

Meanwhile, the severed head that had been discovered by the watchman stuck on a mud-bank at Horse Ferry wharf had been appropriated by the local magistrates. They ordered that ‘the head should be washed clean, and the hair combed.’ It was then placed on top of a wooden spike in the churchyard of St Margaret’s, in Westminster, in the hope that someone would recognise the face and inform the constables. Many in the crowds that flocked to witness this grim sight thought they recognised the head of John Hayes. Some even mentioned their suspicions to Thomas Billings, but he assured them that Hayes was still alive and had gone away on business.

After four days, it was decided to halt the decomposition of the head by storing it in a large glass jar at the premises of a barber-surgeon, and a chemist, Mr Westbrook, was called upon to fill the jar with cheap gin as a preservative.

For some reason, Catherine Hayes then decided to move to new lodgings in the same street, accompanied by Mrs Springate (presumably with her husband and child), Thomas Billings and Thomas Wood. From there, she set about gathering all the monies owed to her husband and spent lavishly on both her lovers. This did not go down well with her neighbours, or with friends of John Hayes. Mr Ashby, a business colleague who had known Hayes well, called on Catherine and demanded to know where her husband was. Her husband, she told him, had got into a fight with another man and killed him; unable to bribe the man’s widow with enough money to ensure her silence, he had fled London. Mr Ashby then asked if the head on the spike had been that of the man killed in the fight – but Catherine cleverly denied this, saying that the man her husband had killed had been buried whole. Where was John now? He had gone to work in Portugal.

Mr Ashby was not satisfied with this explanation, and voiced his doubts to a distant relative of Hayes, a Mr Longmore. They hatched a plan whereby Mr Longmore would call on Catherine and inquire about the whereabouts of John Hayes, to see if her explanation differed from the one given to Mr Ashby. As there were some discrepancies in her story, Messrs Ashby and Longmore (and another friend called Mr Eaton) decided to inspect the severed head more closely.

After carefully poring over the gruesome remains, they became convinced that the head had once belonged to their friend. They went straight to a magistrate, a Mr Lambert. On hearing their suspicions, he issued warrants for the arrest of Catherine Hayes, Thomas Billings, Thomas Wood – and Mrs Springate! The gentlemen went in person to the lodging house where the suspects lived and the landlord showed them to Catherine’s room. Calling for her to come out, the magistrate threatened to break down the door if she didn’t open it immediately. Catherine called back that she would open it as soon as she had put on her clothes. When she eventually opened the door, Thomas Billings was ‘sitting on the side of the bed, bare-legged’.3

One of the officers asked him: ‘Have you been sleeping with this woman?’

‘No, I’ve been mending my stockings,’ came the facetious reply.

The magistrate and Mr Longmore then went upstairs and arrested Mrs Springate; Catherine, Billings and Mrs Springate (there was no sign of Wood) were taken into custody and questioned separately, at length, at the magistrate’s house. They all, however, maintained their innocence and it was decided that they should remain in custody until the following day, when they would be questioned further by Mr Lambert and other magistrates. Catherine Hayes was taken to Tothill Fields gaol, at Bridewell, Thomas Billings to Newgate Prison and Mrs Springate to the Gatehouse.4

The next day, when fetched from prison to face further questioning, Catherine expressed a desire to see the head, which was in the possession of a barber-surgeon. On seeing the head in the glass jar, she exclaimed: ‘Oh, it is my dear husband’s head! It is my dear husband’s head!’ She then put on an exaggerated show of wifely grief by crying bitterly as she cradled the glass jar in her arms. This dramatic display was intensified when Mr Westbrook suggested that he should take the head out of the jar so she might inspect it more closely, just to make sure. As she held the head in her hands, she kissed it several times and then pleaded with Mr Westbrook to let her have a lock of his hair. On being told by Mr Westbrook that she ‘had had too much of his blood already’, she fell into a faint. Once recovered, she was led to Mr Lambert’s house, where she was questioned again by the magistrates.5

On 26 March, whilst all these histrionics were being played out, the mangled remains of the body of John Hayes were discovered. A man and his servant, whilst crossing the fields at Marylebone, found the headless remains and Mr Lambert, still questioning the suspects, was informed.

Both the Weekly Journal and Mist’s Weekly Journal informed their readers of the grisly find:

The body of a man has been found without a head near Tottenham-Court-Road, much mangled and bruised; which, by the time of lying, is supposed to have belonged to the head lately found at Westminster. The wife and her gallant were taken, on violent suspicion of the said murder, together with another woman, and committed to several prisons. His name is John Hayes.

The Weekly Journal went into more detail:

The arms, thighs and legs of a man cut asunder, as if done with a butcher’s cleaver, were found last Wednesday in a pond at Marybone [sic] and on Thursday they drag’d the pond and took out the trunk of the body wrapt in a blanket, but finding no head, ‘tis suppos’d that which was exposed to publick view at Westminster in St Margaret’s Church-yard, belong’d thereto.

Catherine Hayes was subsequently committed for trial and transported to Newgate Prison.6

The committal of Thomas Billings and Mrs Springate was deferred until Thomas Wood had been apprehended. On his return to London, Wood rode straight to Catherine Hayes’s lodgings and was told to go to Mr Longmore’s house. That gentleman’s brother, however, was waiting for him and ‘seized him, and caused him to be carried before Mr Lambert’. When questioned by the magistrate, Wood refused to confess to any involvement in the murder of John Hayes and was taken to Bridewell Prison. At the prison he was informed that the dismembered body of Hayes had been found; on hearing this, he begged to be returned to Mr Lambert’s house and, once there, he admitted his part in the killing and signed a confession.

According to the Newgate Calendar, ‘this wretched man owned that since the perpetration of the crime he had been terrified at the sight of everyone he met, that he had not experienced a moment’s peace, and that his mind had been distracted with the most violent agitation.’

This done, he was escorted to Newgate Prison, protected from angry mobs in the street, by eight soldiers with fixed bayonets. A Mr Mercer visited Thomas Wood in prison and Wood pleaded with him to go to Thomas Billings and urge him to confess. Billings was subsequently brought before Mr Lambert and confessed to his part in the crime. He also implicated both Catherine Hayes and Thomas Wood, saying that she, Hayes, had paid for the drink to make her husband so drunk he was unable to defend himself and that, although he, Billings, had struck the murderous blows, it was Wood who had dismembered the body. It was now clear that Mrs Springate was completely innocent, and she was released.7

The Weekly Journal, on 2 April, published a lengthy article on the arrest of Catherine Hayes, Thomas Billings and Thomas Wood:

Margaret8 Hayes, who stands committed to Newgate for petty-treason, for being concern’d in the most inhumane and un-heard of murder of her husband John Hayes, hath confess’d That she hath had fourteen children by her said husband; That having criminal conversation9 with Thomas Wood, a butcher, and Thomas Billins, a taylor, both Worcestershire men, they put her upon complying with the execrable deed, that they might get into possession of her husband’s substance, and keep her without molestation; That when her husband was murdered, they took out of his pocket 26 guineas, 9 King George’s shillings, and 6 six-pence, 11 guineas whereof they return’d to her, and kept the rest themselves.

And on Monday the said Thomas Billins was removed from New-Prison to Newgate, by Justice Lambert’s Warrant, and loaded with irons, and are since put into the condemn’d hold, but are not stapled down.

Also the same day in the evening, the abovesaid Thomas Wood was brought to Newgate in a coach, guarded by a Serjeant and two Files of Musqueteers and several constables; the mob all the way expressing their joy by loud huzzas. He confessed before Colonel Mohun and Mr Lambert, two Justices of the Peace, That himself and Billins first made the late Mr Hayes drunk with claret in his own gouse [sic]; (the wife having furnish’d money for that purpose) and that he falling asleep, Billins broke his scull as he lay on the bed with an ax, and knock’d out his brains, which causing a great effusion of blood, the good woman advis’d to cut the head off, which was done accordingly; she afterwards brought them a box to put the body in, but not being sufficient to receive it, they quarter’d the same, and carry’d it out as formerly mention’d.

We hear the wife gave the murtherer her husband’s hat, coat, and some silver, and assured him he should not want; and that last Sunday he came to town for more money, and calling at her lodging, the landlord said she was remov’d to the next street; and so carry’d him to a friend of the deceas’d, where he was secur’d.

Wood, upon his confession of having quarter’d the deceas’d, being ask’d if he was not a butcher by trade, said, he was not, but could kill and cut up a beast as well as any butcher at all.

The mangled corpse was carried out of town on Monday last in a hearse followed by several mourning coaches, to be interr’d at Ombersley in Worcestershire; his mother, who is come to town, having order’d the funeral, and a vigorous prosecution against the murderers.

The following week, on 9 April, the Weekly Journal added yet one more detail – only partially true – to the horrible case:

Last Saturday it was discover’d; That William [Thomas] Billins, by trade a taylor, the person that beat out Mr Hayes’s brains with a hatchet, on the 1st of March last, at his house in Tyburn-Road; is the natural son of Margaret [Catherine] Hayes, begotten by a tanner in Worcestershire, before her marriage with the said Mr Hayes.10

There was a coroner’s inquest, opened on 16 April, in a house near Soho. Having viewed the mangled remains of John Hayes, a verdict was reached, that of wilful murder against Catherine Hayes, Thomas Billings and Thomas Wood.

The Trial

Catherine Hayes and her cohorts stood trial at the April Sessions of the Old Bailey between Wednesday 20th and Saturday 23rd. They appeared before the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, several other judges and a jury of twelve men. Thomas Billings and Thomas Wood were both charged with murder, but the indictment against Catherine was more specific:

Katherine Hays [Catherine Hayes] is indicted for Petty Treason, in being Traitorously present, comforting and maintaining the said Thomas Billings in the Murder of the said John Hayes, her Husband.11

Catherine attempted to dispute the charge against her by insisting that her part in the murder had merely been holding the candle while her two lovers dismembered the body. She was not guilty of the murder, she firmly believed, insisting that it was the work of the Devil.

Although both Billings and Woods had confessed their guilt, Catherine still maintained her innocence, on the grounds that she had not actually struck the mortal blows that killed her husband. Her protestations held no sway, however, with the jurors; they felt that her part in the murder made her equally culpable, and pronounced her guilty of ‘petty treason’. They found all three prisoners guilty as charged.12

Wood and Billings were to be hanged at Tyburn and their bodies hung in chains from a gibbet. Catherine Hayes was sentenced to be burned at the stake. She begged the court not to inflict such a terrible retribution – one she had always dreaded – but to no avail.

Catherine and the other condemned prisoners were taken to the Condemned Hold at Newgate prison and, thereafter, only allowed bread and water. For a fee, paid to the turnkeys, members of the public were allowed admittance to the prison to gawp at the prisoners. Many were affronted by the way Catherine Hayes and Thomas Billings held hands and stood leaning closely together. Whilst awaiting the death sentence, Thomas Wood appeared full of remorse and, whilst suffering from a severe bout of ‘gaol fever’ or typhus, he was subjected to the fervent administrations of religious advisers13, and dutifully declared that he felt that he deserved to die. Perhaps fortunately for him, he died of the fever before the sentence could be carried out.

Catherine Hayes, however, fought to escape the terrible fate awaiting her. She somehow managed to obtain a small phial of poison with which to kill herself, but her plan was thwarted when another female prisoner, thinking the phial contained liquor of some sort, grabbed it from her and tasted it.

She did eventually make a full confession to the Ordinary, the Revd J. Guthrie, though she still contested the severity of her sentence. The London Journal informed its readers that Catherine had also ‘affirmed that Billings was her own son’. They then added the awful detail that he been ‘got by Mr Hayes’s father, when she lived with him as a servant [a common problem at the time, as servant girls and masters lived in such close proximity]. So that Billings murder’d his own brother, assisted in quartering him, and then lay with his own mother, while his brother’s mangled limbs were under the bed.’

A different version appeared in the Ipswich Journal, dated 7 May 1726 (though in this one the identity of Thomas Billings’s father is not given):

She said she did not value Death, only the thought of burning was terrible to her. After the Deed Warrant came down, and she found she must die, she began to shew signs of repentance, and on Sunday before Execution she fainted at the sermon which was preached in the afternoon; and then she acknowledged that she was guilty of whatever had been sworn against her, and that she had had two Bastards; and that Billings was her son, who was about 22 years old, and by her dropt in a basket at Holt-Heath, near Omersley, in Worcester and was put to nurse by the Parish to one Billings, from whence he was call’d Billings.

A third version of Thomas Billings’s parentage was provided by the Newcastle Courant, on Saturday 14 May: after referring to Catherine Hayes as ‘such a vile woman scarcely to be paralleled’, it announced:

Upon taking the Sacrament at Newgate, she affirmed that Billings, who was hanged in chains near Tyburn Road, was her own son, got by Mr Hayes, this supposed before her marriage with him, so that the son killed his father, and assisted in quartering him, had Criminal Conversation with his mother, and lay with her when his Father’s mangled limbs were under the bed.

They added that ‘a special order from the Council’ had been issued that she should be burned alive – as was customary in such cases – and not first strangled. It seems likely that the writer of the article misquoted the piece in the London Journal when it stated that it was the murder victim, John Hayes (and not his father) who had fathered Thomas Billings. However, in both accounts – one published two days prior to her execution and the other five days afterwards – Catherine had no opportunity to put the record straight by stating which Hayes was the father of Thomas Billings – her late husband or her father-in-law.

According to the Newgate Calendar, when asked the reason for murdering her husband she repeated her allegations, saying that, ‘it was no more Sin to kill him than a Dog or Cat, because of the cruel Usuage he gave her, and his blasphemous Expressions which he too frequently used’.

The Execution

On the Sunday before her execution she attended a service which was held in the prison chapel. For a fee paid to the turnkeys – a practice that earned them a lot of money, until it was stopped in 1860 – members of the public were allowed admittance, ghoulishly anxious to hear the Ordinary’s pulpit-thumping sermon and watch the look of terror on the faces of the condemned. Throughout the service the prisoners sat on either side of a table, draped in black cloth; on the table was a black coffin.

The following day, which would be her last on earth, 9 May 1726, Catherine Hayes received the sacrament in the prison chapel – available only to those condemned to die within one week – and was then taken to the Press Yard with the others who had been condemned to death. Their leg irons were removed and nooses put around their necks; they were then transported by three carts or wagons, sitting on their coffins, to Tyburn.14

Thomas Billings went in the cart carrying the two burglars but Catherine was strapped to a hurdle or sledge and dragged through the streets of London, stirring up all the dust and filth littering the streets – an easy target for both missiles and blows directed at her from the jeering crowds lining the route and baying for her blood.

The 2-mile journey to Tyburn could take as long as three hours – via Holborn, St Giles and the Tyburn Road (now Oxford Street) to Tyburn Lane (now Park Lane). The horse-drawn carts, sometimes draped in black cloth, were accompanied by a large posse of guards and officials – the Chief Marshal, on horseback in all his finery, the Under-Marshal, javelin men and constables, with the armed guards bringing up the rear. When the procession reached the church of St Sepulchre15, its bell began to toll as family and friends gave the condemned nosegays. A church official then addressed them: ‘You that are condemned to die, repent with lamentable tears; ask mercy of the Lord for the salvation of your souls.’

Then, turning to the huge crowds that had gathered, he urged them to, ‘pray heartily unto God for these poor sinners who are now going to their death, for whom the bell tolls.’

As custom demanded, the procession stopped at various taverns on the way; it was here that the condemned were allowed off the wagon, though the hangman remained in the cart. Still tethered and guarded, they were given ale or gin to drink before resuming their dreaded journey. Mercifully, many were drunk by the time they reached the gallows. This may be the origin of the term ‘off the wagon’, meaning to take a last drink.

On reaching Tyburn, a huge crowd was waiting to witness the grisly spectacle; at street level, hordes surged forward as the carts approached and every window and rooftop was taken up with excited spectators. So great was the crowd that one of the spectators’ grandstands, especially erected for executions two years before and holding about 150 people, collapsed, causing the deaths of at least two people – a gentleman and a snuff-box maker – and injuring many more.

The British Gazetteer informed its readers that some twelve men and women were ‘maimed and wounded in a most cruel manner; some having their legs, others their arms, &c. broke. Some part of the scaffold [the spectators’ stand] being left standing, the mob gathered upon it again in numbers; and in about half an hour more, that also fell down, and several were hurt.’

More drama ensued when the two highwaymen, John Mapp and Henry Vigus, attempted to escape from the carts, having freed themselves of their nooses and wrist ties. Sadly for the men, they were immediately seized. The prison chaplain would usually at this point exhort the condemned to repent their sins and, hopefully, provide the expectant crowd with some suitably anguished dying words – preferably with a last-minute warning about the dire consequences of sin. Especially dramatic or heart-rending dying speeches were often issued in pamphlets on sale on the streets very soon after the execution had taken place – and often before, the writers being rather unscrupulous. Some sought to delay the moment of death as long as possible by embarking on epic speeches, addressing the crowds at great length and with dramatic emphasis, either confessing to their crimes or vehemently denying any culpability; faced with such a large and attentive audience, others took the opportunity to rail against the injustice of their sentence.

Although the hangman was entitled to claim possession of the dead person’s clothes, some of the condemned still chose to wear their finest apparel, anxious to cut a fine figure on the gallows. James Boswell described a young highwayman, Paul Lewis, in Newgate, awaiting execution in 1763: he was ‘drest in a white coat & blue silk vest & silver, with his hair neatly queued & a silver-lac’d hat, smartly cock’d’. Others, however, wore little more than rags to ensure that the hated hangman didn’t profit from their deaths.