The Edwards family are thrown into turmoil in one night, leading to the loss of two children.
David Edwards and Mary Ann Dartnell married on 2nd September 1830, at Linton Parish church and lived in Linton Kent. Mary gave birth to a son, in April 1831, named James Dartnell Barling but when baptised he was named James Dartnell Edwards.
Son Thomas was born in Linton Kent in 1832, to , he was followed by twins William May and Emily in 1834, then George Kebble in 1839, all born in Linton.
Emily was sent to live elsewhere for some reason before 1841 and never returned (possibly due to not having the room in a house full of boys)
They moved to Maidstone Kent and had their youngest Samuel in 1847.
In 1851, they were living in the Shreeves Buildings (which eventually was named Bedford Row, situated by Maidstone Prison) David and their sons William, Thomas and George, were working as labourers.
James aged 20, was living with the local Silversmith Mr Tate and working as his shopman
In 1855, William May age 22, became a father to a Son named William with Elizabeth Fuller and they moved into another house 2 doors up from the family at no 23.
The rest of the family continued to live in their two-bed house at 21, leaving George and Thomas sharing the back bedroom and Samuel sleeping in with his parents in the front.
In 1857, Thomas was the employee of Mr Stokes, a market gardener at Heath Road, George was unemployed.
On Wednesday 18th March, Father David and the youngest Samuel went to bed at Eight. Thomas got home at about half past eight. He ate his supper and went to bed.
George then came home at about ten o’clock and his mother sat up for about half an hour talking to him. She then went down into the cellar to chop some wood for the morning’s fire with an axe, which she left in the cellar. She then went to bed, leaving George downstairs having his supper, he told her, he was just coming to bed.
After she had been upstairs a few minutes, She heard George come up, enter the bedroom where he and Thomas slept, and shut the door. His mother then went down to see if the doors and windows were properly fastened, as George would sometimes go out after she had gone to bed, leaving the door open. She found everything safe, returned upstairs got into bed and was very soon in deep sleep.
Both David and Sarah were awakened by some kind of noise, it sounded like a crash of some sort.
The first thing David did, when coming to his senses was to ask his wife whether George had come to bed. She said, yes, he then said, ''Strike a light immediately,” which she did. She hastened into the other room, and he followed close to her.
She then saw Thomas lying in bed, bleeding badly. The bedroom window was wide open, and there was a candle burning on a chest near the window. George was gone and there was no one in the room but Thomas, who was insensible and moaning. She then saw he was bleeding and exclaimed, “Oh dear no, George has murdered Tommy." She then dressed herself and David knocked at the walls and called in the neighbours on the other side. Master Lee and Master King, and their relations went to the house. Master Lee was in first. My husband also ran and called his son William, by that time several other neighbours had come in.
The doctor was called but couldn't help Thomas and he died.
On the morning of Friday 20th March, considerable excitement prevailed in the town after hearing about a telegraph message from Superintendent Blundell to the effect that George Edwards, had been apprehended that morning by the police at Rochester.
Several people had assembled in the High Street and the neighbourhood of the Town Hall, expecting that he would be brought into the town on the North Kent train at 10.30 a.m. In this expectation, they were, however, disappointed. The prisoner was brought over from Rochester in a fly carriage, accompanied by Superintendent Tuff and police constable Thomas Smith, of Rochester, arriving shortly before one o’clock, he was brought to the Town Hall
The following magistrates were assembled,
The Mayor Mr J. Whichcord esq. Mr Thomas Franklyn Esq Mr H. Argles, Esq., Mr H. Godden, Esq., and Mr W. Hills, Esq.
When placed at the dock George looked around him carelessly, appearing perfectly indifferent to the accusation brought against him. He was described as a stout-made, determined-looking young fellow
Superintendent Blundell said he charged the prisoner with the wilful murder of his brother, Thomas Edwards.
He had been called to the house in which the prisoner lived with his parents and brother about one o’clock Thursday morning.
Thomas was found deceased lying in bed with severe wounds on his face and head. The lower jaw was nearly severed from the skull, and there were other wounds upon the head.
He was induced to give orders and take steps for the apprehension of George for questioning
He had that morning received a telegraph message from superintendent Tuff, of the Rochester borough police, to the effect that the prisoner had been apprehended in the High Street of that town by PC Thomas Smith, at about half-past five in the morning.
The superintendent requested that the prisoner be remanded for a week, as by that time, be able to produce conclusive evidence against him.
George then enquired whether witnesses were to be examined.
Mr. Case (clerk)- ''No, the application is that you are remanded for a week. Have you anything to say to the magistrate?''
George ''All I have to say is I'm innocent of the charge brought against me; I was in Boxley that night, at quarter after eleven.”
He was then remanded.
The inquest was held that Friday afternoon, at the Royal George inn, Boxley Road, before the borough coroner, Mr T. Kipping, Esq., and what was said to be a highly respectable and intelligent jury. Mr Robert George Pike was the foreman.
The first witness examined was the mother of the deceased. The unfortunate woman, who was deeply affected, gave the following evidence:
''I am the wife of David Edwards, and live with husband No. 21, Bedford Row. My three sons, Thomas., George, and Samuel, lived with us. Samuel was about ten years of age; he slept in the same room with me and my husband''.
She then went on to tell the court about the evening, as described above.. she continued
''There was a flower pot, standing on the window sill of the bedroom, in which Thomas and George slept. I saw it there Wednesday evening when I fastened the window, which was about six o’clock. When I entered the room, on being aroused from sleep, I noticed that the flower pot was gone, and I afterwards saw that it had fallen or been thrown down, as the pieces lay under the room window. A pane of glass had been broken in the lower window. I did not notice that this pane was broken when I went to bed''.
Directly after the alarm was given, a doctor was called for and Mr Godfrey Sanders came in about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes.
She went on to say, George was in the habit of sleeping on the side of the bed nearest to the window. ''I did not hear any noise after I went upstairs until I was woken, by the moaning''.
She then stated ''On Monday morning last, I believe it was at breakfast time, my husband told George he had got some work for him to do, and George did not seem to like to do it. Thomas was there and heard what was said, and he told George that if he did not like to go to work he (Thomas) would turn him out of the door. My husband said, ''Don’t say so, Thomas, never mind; don’t say anything about it.” That was all that passed between them''.
She said George was a very strange sort of young man. He would take a long time dressing and cleaning himself. She had known him to take two hours combing his hair. He had strange ways with him. He walked about often at night. He would go downstairs and walk about, and then up to bed again, but she didn't know what he walked about for.
She said he had not quarrelled with his brother Thomas. They did not quarrel on Wednesday. They were generally on good terms. She also said they never spoke much to each other, as George never spoke to anyone much. George was generally very silent and was not in the habit of quarrelling with his brother. She said that Thomas did not threaten to turn George out of doors on Wednesday and they never quarrelled, as Thomas was asleep when George came in. She lastly said she had never heard George threaten his brother.
In reply to a question from Mr. Austen (a juryman): ''l knew that George had pledged my husband’s coat. I did not see him take it, but I had lost it, George had asked me to let him have it, and I refused and then I told George I knew he had taken it and George said he had pledged it to get a pair of shoes, and that he would get it out again.
In reply to a question from the foreman (Mr Pike): ''l was the first person downstairs after seeing my son Thomas. I found the doors and windows all fastened''. Upon further recollection, she said ''I cannot say positively, but I think I was first downstairs. I was down before Master Lee came in''
A large and broad carpenter’s axe, weighing between six - and seven pounds, was then shown to the witness. The axe was nearly covered with blood, and there was hair adhering to it. She identified it being the axe she had used and had left in the cellar.
Next at the witness stand was David Edwards:
He stated he was a labourer and was the father of the young men, Thomas and George, who lived with him and his wife at 21. Bedford-row. then explained that his two sons slept in the back bedroom of the house. On the night in question, he said he went to bed at about eight o’clock. He went to sleep. He could not recollect that he heard his wife come to bed but did not think he heard her. He said Thomas usually went to bed early, either shortly before or a little after he went. but did not know at what time Thomas went to bed on that night.
''I have frequently heard my sons have a few words. Thomas frequently reproved George for not going to work and threatened to turn him out of doors if he did not work. George was very irritable in his temper, I would try to persuade Thomas not to take any notice about George not working. George was of a very quiet disposition generally, and would seldom say anything to anyone. l would always endeavoured to pacify my sons and to make peace between them.
On Wednesday night, about midnight, I was awakened by a crashing noise and relayed what happened as described above
He said that as soon as his wife entered the room, she exclaimed, “Oh dear me, George has murdered Tommy." at this point, it was said the poor man, who was greatly affected, wept bitterly.
On slightly recovering himself went on to say ''She ran downstairs and I followed, I knocked at the walls to arouse my neighbours each side. I went out the back door, (which he remembered was fastened. The only fastening was by a bolt) and called in on his son William, who lives two doors down along with the neighbours, he came immediately, and Mr. Sanders (surgeon) came shortly after''.
He said he did not particularly observe the room, as was so in so much of a hurry as not to be perfectly conscious of what was going on, but he remembered seeing his wife close the bedroom window. He saw poor Thomas turn himself partly over, but could not recollect whether a candle had been left burning in the room.
He said that PC Leaney was in the room almost as soon as Master Lee.
He was asked to explain more about the quarrelling between Thomas and George:
''Thomas had several times threatened to turn George out of doors because he would not go to work. I believe the last time Thomas threatened him, was on Monday morning, at breakfast time. George made some remark back about being threatened, but I could not tell what it was, as I couldn’t hear it. I have never heard Geroge ever threaten to do anything to Thomas''.
In reply to questioning by Mr Morton (Juryman): ''I had many times heard Thomas tell George that be ought to go to work and get my coat out of pawn''
The axe was shown to the witness, It had the initials D. E. 1845. He again wept bitterly and identified it as being his property, adding. “Oh, dear sir; would you have the kindness to make away with it''
The coroner said it was evident that there must be an adjournment of the inquiry, which could not, for certain reasons, be concluded that day. He hoped they needed to have only one adjournment, and he should be happy to consult the convenience of the jury and to adjourn to any day that would best suit them.
Several jurors expressed a desire to go a little further in that sitting.
Mr. Godfrey Sanders, surgeon, was called:
''On Thursday at about half-past twelve, I was called up to attend the deceased Thomas Edwards. I dressed immediately and got to the house twenty minutes before one. I found the deceased lying In bed bleeding very much and was perfectly insensible, and quite unable to answer any questions. The upper part of the pillow and the bolster where his head was lying, were saturated with blood. I examined him and found two very severe and dangerous wounds on his head. One was from the upper portion of the head, between the parietal and the frontal bones, passing through the temple, and extending through the scalp and down as far as the lower lobe of the ear. It was five inches in length, and went through the scalp (penetrating the membrane of the brain) the whole length of the wound''.
He believed, as far as he could form a judgment, that this was the first wound inflicted, and that the deceased was asleep when the blow was struck. He formed that opinion from the fact that no noise of a struggle was heard, nor were there any appearances of a struggle having taken place. There were no cuts upon the hands or arms, which would most probably have been the case if the deceased had made any attempt to defend himself.
He went on ''The second wound was at the back of the bead, three inches in length. This wound also passed right through the skull. The third wound was on the chin, completely severing a portion of the lower jaw from the main portion; it was about three inches in length. There was another small wound just at the top of the chin. This was very slight and superficial, merely passing through the integuments. was not more than a quarter of an inch in depth. A fifth wound was the throat, about two and a half inches from the chin, and one inch from the sternum or breast bone. A portion of this wound was very superficial—about two and a half inches, merely passing through the skin, half an inch of it was much deeper, and penetrated the windpipe. The first wound was in no doubt, quite sufficient to cause death, as was also the second. An instrument like the axe produced would inflict such wounds, as those I had described.
He said he first saw that axe in the hands of police constable Leaney when he entered the room where Thomas was lying. There was some blood and some human hair upon it, and the blood was then in a liquid state. There were no other marks of violence upon the body than those he had described.
Mrs. Edwards was recalled:
''About nine o’clock on Wednesday night, I went into my son’s bedroom, as was usual practice. Thomas was at that time fast asleep. He was breathing comfortably and appeared perfectly healthy. He was a very sound sleeper, coming home from his work very tired''.
''George had been very strange for the last twelve months. He would get up and hurry downstairs as if he were going out, and then would change his mind and would not go out till night, he would occupy two or three hours washing himself, combing his hair, and shaving. He seemed to have been quite altered since he left Mr. Franklyn’s, where he had lived for a year and a half, and had only worked a little at hopping and haying last year''.
The Coroner then said he hoped they would not have a very long sitting upon the next occasion, but was quite necessary there should be an adjournment and asked what day in the week would best suit them. and the Jury fixed upon Wednesday next at two o’clock, .
Superintendent Blundell said there was a little girl whose evidence he would like to have taken that day, and Francis King, age 12, said to be an intelligent little girl, was called.
She said she lived with her parents next door to Master Edwards .”On Wednesday night, I woke a little after twelve o’clock. I know it was a little after twelve because I went into Mrs. Edwards’s house about half an hour afterwards, and then saw It wanted 20 minutes to one. I was woken by a noise in the Edwards house and heard a window open and a dreadful blundering, and then she heard some person go past their back door. The blundering noise was like a person chopping wood, and then a noise of what appeared like some chairs being thrown down the next house. I was frightened and went into my mother’s room and told her I had heard a dreadful noise, and just afterwards a knocking was heard at the wall, and then at the back door, and then my father was called''.
The inquiry was then adjourned until Wednesday 25th March
Thomas was buried on Sunday 21st March, at the church of the Holy Trinity in Maidstone. The funeral cortege was followed by a large concourse of people.
The adjourned Inquest was held in the Royal George lnn, Boxley-road, on Wednesday afternoon, when the following additional evidence was taken;
The first witness was James King, labourer, 20 Bedford-row Maidstone:
''I live in the house adjoining that occupied by the Edwards. Last Wednesday night, I was called about twenty minutes after twelve. My little girl first aroused me by running into my bedroom in fright. In the course of four or five minutes afterwards, I heard a knocking against the wall, and Master Edwards called for me to go in. I went as soon as I could and then saw Thomas lying on the bed. bleeding very much from his wounds. A candle stood upon a chest by the window; it was burning and the window was open. It had been thrown open as far as it would go. I saw PC Leaney in the bedroom. PC Leaney searched the room, and found under the bed, an axe, which was very bloody.
I saw George Edwards going towards Heath Road at about half-past five on that Wednesday evening. I did not hear any quarrelling between the brothers for some time but at times I have heard them having a few words about George not going to work but I've not heard anything during the last two or three months''.
Mrs. Edwards was re-examined again:
The poor woman was said to appear to be suffering very much from the awful circumstances that have occurred, after being bereft of one son, she is now in great danger of losing a second.
She said that when she went to bed on Wednesday night she left George downstairs. The candlestick she found in Thomas’s bedroom was the one she left downstairs with George. She knew It be the same. she heard George come upstairs. She knew it was him, but she did not hear him speak, nor did she see him. He wore a pair of Wellington boots, and he was in the habit of wearing his boots upstairs. She did not know if George went up to the bedroom before he went to bed.
''About eleven o’clock on Wednesday morning, I asked George where the axe was, and He said, ''Perhaps it is stairs,” as his father was in the habit of putting the axe upstairs, under the drawers because they should not use it. George then went upstairs and fetched the axe. I do not know where he got it from. George never had charge of the axe. I used the axe that morning and left it in the cellar, which I found when I went to chop the wood that night. I have used the axe every day for a long time before the day on which the murder was committed. I used it on Tuesday, and left it in the cellar''
In reply to a Juror: ''My husband did not like any of us to use the axe, as he wanted it kept for hop-poling,” and we sometimes made gaps in it''.
Another juror was questioning her on something she had said, to her belief that George intended to murder the whole of the family. She denied that she had said so, and the coroner reminded the juror that the answers to the questions were not admissible as evidence and that anything that might have been said by the mother, as to her belief, ought not to bias the jury.
David Edwards was re-examined:
he said he used to sometimes put the axe in his bedroom, because they (the family) used to take it to chop wood, and they used to notch it. He kept it to trim hop-poles. He never knew George to take charge of the axe.
Next was Police Constable George Leaney, No. 7:
''On the night of Wednesday last I was on duty in Wheeler Street, near Bedford Row. At about twenty-five minutes before one Thursday morning I met William Edwards, brother to the deceased, who said, ''Oh, someone has murdered my brother,” I went to the house at No. 21, Bedford-row, and in the upstairs back bedroom I saw the deceased, who was bleeding profusely from some frightful wounds that had been inflicted upon his head and face. The pillow, the bolster, and the upper part of the bed were saturated with blood. The deceased appeared to be suffering most excruciating pain and he was perfectly insensible. I sent for the doctor and Mr. Saunders who was very quickly in attendance. In the meantime, I searched the room, and underneath the bed, on the side nearest the window, I found the axe produced. Both sides of the blade were covered with blood. The axe was covered over with some dirty wearing apparel. The blood on the axe was in a fluid state and the instrument had been used.
The Coroner briefly summed up, reading over the evidence and commenting upon those features, most affecting the accused person.
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of Wilful Murder against George Edwards and made out his warrant.
George was still maintaining his innocence and had requested an interview with his parents
At the Petty Sessions on Tuesday 31st March before the Mayor (Mr J. Whichcord, Esq.), Mr H Argles, Esq-, Mr C. Arckroll, Esq., Mr C. Ellis, Esq., and Mr T. Hyde, Esq.
George who was brought from the county gaol and again placed at the bar charged with the wilful murder of his brother, Thomas Edwards and was, as before, said to look as unconcerned as ever.
He answered questions put to him in a loud confident tone of voice.
Inside the Town Hall was densely crowded by people anxious to see the prisoner and to hear the evidence against him; This caused a delay before his parents were brought into the Hall. On taking their seats they wept bitterly, his father, in particular, was deeply affected.
The Prosecution was conducted by Mr. Monckton, town clerk, who called, as his first witness:
George's mother whose evidence was a repeat from that given in the inquest. The axe also produced
George spoke, “ I beg your pardon, sir but you had no business to place that in her hand.”
The Clerk (Mr Case}: “l don’t know what you say''
George repeated the words.
The Clerk: “ George Kebble Edwards, do you wish to ask the witness any questions''.
George: ''No, sir, there is only the mistake about the time, it was ten o’clock when she went to bed.
The Clerk to Mrs. Edwards: ''What was the time? you said it was about half past ten!
Mrs. Edwards: ''Yes, sir, that was about the time''.
She was then moved to another room.
David Edwards was next examined—He said son Thomas was 24 years of age. (he was 25) George was 18. and Samuel who slept in the same room with him and Mrs. Edwards was 9 (he was 10).
He then repeated as he had done at the inquest. the axe produced and he confirmed it was his property, and it had his initials upon it.
George declined to put any questions to his father.
Francis King, the neighbour's daughter repeated her evidence and again, along with her father James King, as he had at the inquest. The prisoner declined to question the witnesses
Police Constable Leahy gave his evidence and told the court he gave the axe to Inspector Fancett.
Mr. Godfrey Sanders, of Brewer’s-street, surgeon, gave the evidence as he had at the inquest about the injuries he found. The axe was produced and he said the instrument would be likely to produce the wound he had described. Mr. Ellis- Does that apply to the whole of the wounds?
Mr Sanders—Yes, sir; it does.
Examination continued: He remained with Thomas for three hours, and during the whole of that he never recovered from his state of insensibility. After his death, he examined the boy and found no other marks of violence than those had described. He believed that the wounds he had first described, were the wound that was first inflicted, and Thomas was asleep when that blow struck, as there were no marks of struggle or scratches upon his head or arms. The first wound penetrated the membrane of the brain. He did not doubt that the death of the deceased was caused by the wounds described.
The next witness was Thomas Edwards, of Brompton, near Gillingham, a pensioner in the Royal Marines, and uncle to the prisoner:
On Thursday morning, the 19th of March, George appeared at his room, in Brompton about nine o'clock.
''George called out as he came upstairs, and I called to him to open the door. George said he could not find the latch, and I opened the door to him. I did not recognise him at first, I had not seen him for five years, and George had grown considerably. I said, ''Who are you'' and George said ''Don’t you know your nephew'' I said '' Is it George'' He replied “Yes.” George entered the room, and afterwards, we went to a public house and had a pint of beer. while we were there, George said he had not been to bed all night. I asked if he had been walking all night, and he said he had been to see a young woman home in Boxley late on the previous night, and that he stopped with her for some time, and then thought he would take a stroll further and see me. In answer to my questions, George said his father, mother, and brothers were quite well. we went home for breakfast, and I noticed that George had some difficulty drinking his tea, and he seemed sleepy. He laid down upon my bed and slept soundly till five o’clock. When he got up, he returned to the public house where we had been before. afterwards, I called him from the window, and he came back and had some tea. He remained with me until nine o'clock. He went away, saying he was going to Rochester to see someone, and perhaps he should go on to Maidstone after but if not, he would come and see me again in the morning. I saw no more of him until I saw him at the bar today''.
George declined to ask any questions
Next was PC Thomas Smith from Rochester
''I captured the prisoner near the Guildhall in Rochester on the 20th of March. The Prisoner was proceeding towards Gravesend when I saw him. He passed me, and I followed him and stopped him. I touched him on the shoulder and said, Edwards.” He replied. Yes." I then asked him when he left Maidstone last. He replied, The night before last.” I asked him then where he slept the night before, and he said. I shall not answer that question.” I told him he need not. unless he liked it. I then said, '' You live behind the gaol wall.” he replied, ''yes, I do.” I next said, You have got two brothers,” and he said he had. I said he had one named Thomas, and he said he had. I then told him I should take him into custody for ill-using his brother or murdering him, I did not know whether he was dead or not. The prisoner then said, Not me." I told him I should take him into custody, and he said I was not a constable. I told him I was not a constable of Maidstone, but I was of Rochester; and he replied, ''That is what I mean.”
I took the prisoner to the station and locked him up. About a half-hour afterwards, I removed him to another cell and told him to strip. The prisoner said, ''What for? you will find no spots of blood on me'' I said I must do my duty and you must strip, and he then said, “ I tell you you’ll find no spots of blood on me." The prisoner did strip, and no traces of blood were found, and he said,'' I told you you wouldn't find any''.
I told him that he was charged with chopping his brother with an axe, and he replied, Not me !”
The prisoner was afterwards brought to Maidstone.
This was the whole of the evidence produced, and the depositions were read over to the prisoner and signed by the witnesses.
The Mayor put the usual questions after having duly cautioned George.
George: ''l have nothing to say about the case, sir, only that I am innocent of the crime.’’
The Mayor: “ George Kebble Edwards, you are committed to the gaol of this county to take your trial at the next assizes
George: As the case is to go no further now, it is time that I should make an application. There are several things taken from me when was apprehended, and wish to have them returned.
The Mayor (to Mr. Blundell) -'' What things are they?''
Superintendent Blundell: ''A pocket-handkerchief and other articles. They will be of no use to him, as they will be taken from him on his admittance to the gaol''
Mr Monckton said he thought that as well, that they should be retained, as they were of no use to him and they didn't know what would arise. There was no money.
The application was refused and George was returned to Maidstone Gaol.
George was said to have conducted himself in a perfectly calm and collected manner and signed his statement of innocence with a firm hand.
It was supposed that the plea at the trial would be that he was insane at the time of committing the crime (supposing that he was the guilty party)
It was also noted that his bedroom wall was scrawled with quotations from the bible, the common prayer book and other works. one of them being the following:
''The weapons of the wise are the reason
The weapons of the foolish are steel.”
George would frequently express a strong desire to see his parents, but no interview had taken place up to that day, and during the examination, his relatives were said to have studiously avoided looking at him.
At the Maidstone Home Circuit which was presided over by Justice James Shaw Willes.
Sir W. E. Riddell and Mr Russell conducted the prosecution; Mr G. Denman was counsel for the prisoner.
All the previous witnesses were brought forward again to give evidence. The facts lay in a very narrow compass, and the crime was established against the prisoner by the prosecution.
Mr Denman then rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Having spoken sympathy for an advocate, who had undertaken to do battle, under such disadvantageous circumstances for a fellow creature's life, he alluded to the prisoner's state of mind. He would not have the jury omit that subject altogether from their minds, the prisoner being shown by the evidence to have been always odd. and singular, and taciturn but the prisoner himself had expressly desired that no defence of insanity should be set up.
His defence now was, as it had been before the magistrates, that he was innocent of the crime. The whole evidence against the prisoner was pure of a circumstantial nature, and on that, he would remind the jury, to the words of the late Baron Alderson. that in cases of circumstantial evidence, before the jury could find the prisoner guilty, they must be satisfied that his guilt is not only consistent with the facts but inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the prisoner is the guilty person.
The learned counsel then proceeded to contend that, although there was evidence to show the doors were fastened, it was equally clear that the windows, both back and front, were not fastened. That being so, and remembering the eccentric and irregular habits of the prisoner, was it improbable that he had gone out again, and that some midnight murderer had got in, and had attacked the first person who discovered him on his midnight prowl.
It was obvious that the prisoner had never been in bed, the mother was soundly asleep in a few minutes, so what proof was there that he had not gone out? The father could not say that, when he went out to give an alarm, whether the door was fastened or unfastened.
He went over all the evidence as to the behaviour of the prisoner and contended that there was nothing inconsistent with his innocence.
His assertion, that no spots of blood would be found upon him, was not remarkable when it was remembered that P. C. Smith (whose evidence was most disgraceful to him) had told him that he had taken him into custody for murdering his brother.
The learned counsel, however, dwelt much upon the odd and eccentric manners of the prisoner, his inoffensive conduct, his fondness for dumb animals, his hiding in rooms, and shaving twice a day, when he had no beard. his running away as if frightened of Frances King, his going out in the dark, all wholly inconsistent with the health of his mind.
The learned counsel also dwelt upon the strong fact of no blood being found upon the prisoner's clothes, when it was evident he had no time to change them, was worthy of consideration, and concluded with bespeaking merciful exercise of the discretion of the jury, so that these poor people might not be deprived of both their sons, and their grey hairs brought with sorrow to the grave.
And that was the end of his defence.
The Learned Judge, in summing up, discussed the two points chiefly raised by the counsel for the defence—namely, that it was not established that he had committed the offence, and secondly, that if he had, he was not in his right mind. About the latter, his Lordship said that was the defence which must be proved—just as much as the fact that the crime was committed must be proved by the prosecution.
The mother had spoken to eccentric habits: but the father had been in the box. and it was not to be believed that a man could be insane and the father know nothing of it.
The learned Judge, in all his experience, had never heard a defence of that kind put forward, upon so small amount of evidence. The other was the great and important question of the case: whether the prisoner at the bar was the murderer of his brother.
His Lordship went over the evidence but expressed an opinion that the poverty of the household and its position was wholly inconsistent with the idea of a desperado going in to rob and murder. No robbery had taken place—the supposed desperado must have sought the axe, and found it in the cellar, he must then have gone upstairs and murdered the deceased. If the facts adduced failed to produce on their minds a conviction that he must have been the murderer of his brother, they ought to say the prisoner was not guilty but if they are of a contrary opinion, it was their solemn duty to pronounce him guilty.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict at 25 minutes past two o’clock. They returned about ten minutes later and delivered a verdict of GUILTY.
George said (in an undertone): ''Thank God, I am innocent for all that''
His Lordship, assuming the black cap. immediately passed sentence follows :
''George Kebble Edwards. You have been convicted of the wilful murder of your own brother. The facts proved against you were too strong, with all the chances —I should say fair play—the law gives to prisoners in our courts of justice, to allow the jury to find any other verdict than that they have done. Your unhappy mother, like a drowning person catching at a straw, spoke of some former eccentricities of yours, showing that you were insane when you committed this dreadful act. it was but straw. It is impossible to look upon you in any other light than that of a person who has repeated the offence of the first murderer. There are but few days intervening between you and the grave, and I entreat you to take advantage of the time you will have, and endeavour by sincere repentance (trusting where dying men ought to trust) to make amends for your terrible offence.
The sentence of the Court Is that you are hanged until you are dead, and buried within the precincts of the Gaol''
When the sentence of death was passed upon him by Mr Justice. Willes, George turned round and said he was innocent for all that.
George was said to have shown no emotion during the trial or when the sentence was passed and just walked away from the bar with a firm step.
Ever since the conviction, he had been constantly attended by the warders of the prison and although the evidence was most conclusive against him, he persisted in asserting his innocence and he had continued to declare that he did not commit the crime.
A petition for a commutation of the sentence upon him was sent.to Sir George Grey by the Anti-Punishment of Death Society, and the ground upon which it was applied was that the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and that the prisoner persisted in declaring his innocence. The answer returned was that there were no circumstances in the case that would justify any interference with the course of the law.
On Wednesday 12th August, when feeling the near approaching of his fate, he felt it was useless to hold the deception, any longer and gave his confession:
George stated that after his mother went to bed on the night of the murder, he got up and went out, as he was accustomed to doing, and did not get home until past midnight. His brother woke and began to abuse him for leaving the house and being out so late, and struck him with a stick upon him doing so, he rushed downstairs to the cellar got the axe, and went back upstairs, where he says that an struggle took place between them, for the possession of the weapon and in the course of this struggle, he says that he struck the deceased, with the handle and he fell upon the bed, and he then immediately began to chop him with the axe, and he could not say how many times he struck him.
The prisoner then stated that he had been in company with a woman, on the evening of the murder, and after the deed was committed, he returned to her and stayed with her the remainder of the night.
He refused to state who this woman was, but he declared that she did not give him any change of linen, and that there was no blood upon him, and the shirt he wore, when he committed the murder, and the shirt he was wearing to be hanged in, were the same one.
George had been visited frequently by the Rev. Thomas Knott, a dissenting minister, and at times he appeared to pay great attention to his religious persuasion, but during the absence of the clergyman, he frequently used very bad language, and spoke with a lack of seriousness, regarding his position, which, of course, cast great doubt on his assumed penitence.
It appears that George had not seen any of his relations until the day before execution and on the morning of Wednesday, he was visited by his cousin and his youngest brother Samuel. He had written to request his father and mother to come and see him, but they could not do so.
On Thursday 20th August, the day of execution. He was being hanged at noon, in front of the gaol with Stephen Fox (another blog to come)
It was raining but this did not stop the crowds from gathering around the scaffolding.
Shortly before noon Mr Wildes, the under- Sheriff. of Kent, and several other officers, proceeded to the gaol and shortly afterwards, the culprits were brought into the room where the process of pinioning them was performed by William Chalcraft, the executioner.
Before Chalcraft got to work, the condemned young men shook hands with each other. It was evident that the near approach of death affected George, and he trembled violently while Chalcraft was engaged in pinioning.
The usual procession was then formed, and while the culprits were proceeding to the place of execution, which was a considerable distance from the cells where they had previously been confined, Fox sang a hymn. They mounted the scaffold, and once other proceedings were completed, the drop fell, and death was said to be almost instantaneous mounted the scaffold.
The bodies, after hanging for the usual hour, were cut down, and in the course of the day, were buried within the gaol, following the terms of the sentence.
Life After
The Edwards family remained at 21 Bedford Row until David died in 1865 aged 59
By 1871 Mary Ann and her son Samuel had moved to Boxley Road, Maidstone, next to the morning Star Inn Samuel was working as a Butchers Assistant, Mary was a seamstress and she died in 1898 aged 85
I haven't gone into the strange situation surrounding his name but In 1861, James was working and living with Joseph Barling a watch and clock maker and a member of the Society of Friends (Quaker) residing at 7 High Street Maidstone He was using the surname Edwards, he worked as a shop assistant. In 1879 Joseph Barling died and in August 1880, he married Joseph's Daughter Elizabeth Mary Barling, using his real surname. He took over as the Silversmith at the shop and continued using the surname Barling They had one child named James. He died in September 1910 aged 79
William became a Bricklayers Labourer and married his girlfriend Elizabeth Fuller on in 1859 and they stayed in the area, having four boys, named William, Thomas, James and Samuel. He died in 1915 aged 81
It is unclear what happened to Emily, there are several routes on Ancestry and I don't want to make an assumption.
Samuel was founded in 1881, still living in Tovil with his wife Mary Ann, although I'm unable to find a marriage record for them. (according to the 1911 census, they married in 1872) They had two daughters Florence and Frances. Frances died at age 8 in 1883. He followed in his brother William's footsteps and became a bricklayer's labourer, in 1881, He worked as a labourer for a papermill in the 1901 census but became a bricklayer in 1911. He died in 1934 aged 87.
SOURCES
Sussex Express (1857) 'THE BEDFORD ROW FRATRICIDE MAIDSTONE' 28 March pg 9
Sussex Express (1857) 'THE BEDFORD ROW FRATRICIDEMAIDSTONE' 04 April pg 4
Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser (1857) ''The Maidstone Fratricide 01 August '' Pg 6-7
Kentish Independent (1857) 'Execution of Fox and Edwards' 22 August pg 7
Sussex Advertiser (1857) 'Execution of the Convicts' 25 August pg 7
Bring your backstory to lifeTM (no date) Ancestry® | Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records. Available at: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/
Archive, T.B.N. (no date) History’s colourful stories in black and white, Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive. Available at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/
Pictures and historical info from Wikipedia https://www.wikipedia.org/
Comments