Blog 37. 1866 Ramsgate Kent - The murder of a woman and four children

This involved two families

Walter Smallwood white was born on 8 Nov 1807 in Royston, Hertfordshire, England. He was a Boot Maker and also became a teacher of the trade and at the age of 27 he married 19-year-old Ann Turner White on 23 June 1835. They had 7 children 6 boys and one girl between 1836 - 1850. They lived at 17 Brydges Street, Convent Garden, London

In Sept 1852 Ann was under the doctor, suffering from Puerperal Mania and under supervision by a nurse but on the 21st of Sept, she managed to leap out a second-floor window to her death as the report shows below.

Maria Ann Milner was born on 16th Sep 1831 in Convent Garden. Her father was a publican and her mother was a music teacher. By March 1851, she had moved to Snittlegarth, Cumberland, England, working as a Child Governess for a family. Her father died on 25th November 1851 after suffering for 18 months of liver disease and she returned to her mother at 15, Brydges Street, Covent Garden.

On 4 Oct 1853 in Old Church, St Pancras, London. She married Widower Walter Smallwood White and opened a day school, a week into their marriage. In a short time, she had procured 26 pupils. Most of them were paying one guinea per quarter and she also had six music pupils paying one guinea. She also did private tuition.

Their first was William Henry, born blind in 1855. Then, in early 1856, they had Thomas William.

In August 1856, after a long course of harsh and cruel treatment from Walter, which started when Maria was pregnant with their first child, she left him and went to reside with her mother.

He went to her mother's house and pleaded with her to return, promising to change his ways, so she gave him another chance.

She then gave birth to their daughter Eliza Annie in 1857 and their son Alexander in 1859

but it seems his behaviour did not change and in March 1859, she left him again.

On 24th March, Maria filed for divorce and a protection order, citing violence against her, his threats to kill her and also that the money she made from her business, was taken by him. Maria and the children would be given the cheapest and coarsest foods, while he would sit and dine on luxury food and drink alcohol during the day. The divorce was never finalised.

She moved to Brighton and set up a school there, her children William Henry (who she changed to Henry W) and her daughter Eliza remained with her. Thomas and Alexander went to live with Richard and Martha Huggett in Forest Row, East Grinstead, as Nurse Children.

The children returned to their father at some point, which will be explained later.

The second family involved is Stephen Forwood born in 1829, in Thanet Kent. His father, William Forwood, was a seaman and also said to be a smuggler. By the age of 12, in 1841, he was living as a boarder with his Maternal Aunt Ester Ellen, along with her 7-year-old son John.

His mother was living alone and working as a laundress, his father was living with his oldest brother Stephen, a boatman, working as a porter

His Mother Sarah Mears, died on 8th August 1842 (I cannot read her cause of death, so let me know if you can)

His father died in December 1845 ( the digital image I ordered of his death was unreadable, so awaiting an update and will insert the details, when I get the information).

In April 1851, at age 22, he lived and worked for a baker as a Baker/Journeyman in Ramsgate Kent.

He had met 22-year-old Mary Ann Jemima Draper from Margate and on Christmas Day in 1851, they married in Hastings Sussex.

In 1853, Mary Ann gave birth to their first child Herbert William.

He Purchased a baker’s business in King Street from Mr Jones but never being fond of hard work, he soon tired of his business and neglected it. After continuing in it for 12 months, he sold it in 1854 for the benefit of his creditors.

He then decided he couldn't live in Ramsgate and went to London with his wife Mary and Herbert.

He was employed and did pretty well at sail-cloth work. He became a commission agent, took a house in Milk Street, Cheapside, and got a good agency from Mr. Jeffrey.

They lived in comfort in London but with the health of Herbert failing, when he was diagnosed with Mesenteric disease, he sent Mary Ann and Herbert back to live at Ramsgate with her mother, away from the smog of London. He would visit them frequently and was always there on their wedding anniversary on Christmas day.

Then one Christmas, he was due as usual, but he wrote to his wife and said that he had fallen into difficulties and could not come, and here, its he probable he took to betting and billiards about that time.

He had moved to Glasgow, Scotland to become a wine merchant, using the name Ernest Walter Southey. He also became a billiard marker in Glasgow, and there unsuccessfully endeavoured to interest some gentlemen in his affairs and obtain him a situation. Hopeless at this and having by some means got a little money together, he arrived in Brighton, and, passed there as a gentleman, playing Billiards at Kentfield’s.

He corresponded with his wife for the next 4 years and would occasionally visit and send her the odd bit of money.

She became a tailor to survive and She gave birth to their daughter in 1857 but Stephen had stopped his correspondence, so he never knew she was born.

On 19th June 1860, tragedy struck and their son Herbert died at age 7 years 5 months but with no contact details, she couldn't let her husband know.

After 7 years of no contact, she thought he was dead. However, from time to time anonymous letters had been sent to her, some of which had contained small sums of money, but the majority of them were enquiring for apartments. It is believed that these letters were sent to her by Forwood, with the view of ascertaining whether she was alive or not.

Stephen had been in Margate Kent, pretending to be a gentleman, dressing smart, and looking wealthy but in reality, he had a gambling addiction.

One evening while walking the Margate Pier, he met Maria Ann, who was suffering from great mental distress. She told him she kept a young ladies’ school and she was endeavouring to bring up her four young children of her own but she had only 2s. 6d. in her possession, was in debt, and had already sinned to get them bread and as a mother should have not and had she left her home, intending never to return, feeling that further life would only end in greater sin and disgrace, so she was going to the pier to jump off into the sea.

They came to the determination to form a union which would be binding on each other. At the same time stipulated that if they failed to raise themselves to a higher position they would both commit suicide. The drugs were purchased and they continued together, with the understanding that life, relied upon the settlement of his claim, which I explain next.

Stephen Forwood had made a claim, against the Earl of Dudley. By his instigation, at the end of March 1864, Maria Ann, with whom he was then cohabiting at Worcester, summoned the Earl of Dudley before the Witley magistrates and charged him with an assault upon her. A cross-summons was charging Maria Ann with having assaulted the Earl, but the only object of that summons, as admitted by his lordship, was to enable him to make a statement on oath.

His lordship’s statement was as follows:—

''In July 1863, Southey first came to me in London, and represented to me that my brother (the Hon. Dudley Ward) had lost money to him at billiards, and he called upon me, in the name of all that was due to his family and position to pay the debt. I told him that in the case of a tradesman who had trusted with goods on the faith of a name, or in the case of money borrowed—principal, not interest—I should consider the claim; but as to gambling debts I should not entertain them for a moment; if I did I should soon be reduced from an independent to a dependent man. If I were to fall into the hands of such a rogue (pointing to Southey, who was in court), the claims made against him, might soon be such that no fortune to meet. I was obliged to threaten to have him turned out by my servants before he would leave.

The next day when on the platform at the Worcester railway station, Southey came up to me and addressed me, on which I threatened to give him into the custody of the police if he interfered with my privacy. Six months passed when I then received a letter from Mrs Southey, enclosing a card from Lady Shaftesbury as an introduction. I went to her in the library, believing that she had some charitable object in hand, and, leaning against a table, said, “ To what cause Mrs Southey am I indebted for the pleasure of this visit ?” To which she replied something about unsatisfied claims on my family, which affected my honour. She represented herself as the wife of Southey, and I told her that I had already given Southey an answer, and mentioned what had taken place on that occasion. She, however, would not leave until I told her that I should leave the room''.

His lordship then went to the meeting on the 12th of March, where she alleged the assault took place.

''When I was told who was waiting to see me, I at once told his servant I would not see her, and directed him to see that the fly did not leave the door until she was in it. My servant then returned and said she was obstinate, that she would not go, and wanted to see the housekeeper. I then went to the library, where she was, and said, ''Mrs Southey, I will not permit this intrusion. You must go.” She asked me to hear her; but I told her that I had heard the case and given my determination, by which I meant to abide. I took her by the left arm—not the right, as she had said—without violence, but determinedly, to show her out of the room. She said, “ You'll touch me, will ‘you ?” and immediately attached herself to my whiskers. She attacked my head. I held her arms and removed her from the room to the hall, where I called my servant Weeks, and when he appeared Mrs Southey changed her manner immediately, from a virago to instantly calm, and bowing said, “I wish you a very good morning my lord'' She afterwards attempted to get back into the hall, and I took her by the shoulders and walked her out along the colonnade''.

He admitted that he had intentionally turned her out of the house, but denied that he had used any more force than was necessary.

It is claimed that at Brighton he played unfairly, and it was all that it was on this account the Hon. Dudley Ward refused to pay him the money he had lost. He had, it is said, some plan for contracting the pockets, or some of them. Though it seems difficult to believe that he could do this unobserved. Perhaps he took good care himself to avoid playing the pockets he had rendered less available than the others.

The enquiry lasted about 5 hours and terminated with the dismissal of the summons against the Earl.

After this, Stephen Forwood, published a long and singular statement, which was mostly unnoticed in the news press, because it was evident the object of the writer, was to represent himself as a man of the highest virtue, the purest morality, and the most chivalric honour and philanthropy, who had fallen on evil days, and whose whole life had been a constant, but unavailing struggle against the overwhelming force of a wicked world and corrupt age.

His explanation of how the debt for which he applied to Lord Dudley was given in his own words:

“At Kentfield’s subscription where I was known, I met the Dudley Ward. He was playing with a solicitor whom he knew, and with whom he often contended against before. I made a wager with him of 5s. Upon the game, he lost to me in all £122. He then contested with me and altogether raised my claim to £1,172. I should have previously stated that at the commencement of the games he proposed an agreement that all the room, to losses should be paid before leaving which I acceded to. Upon being applied to about a fortnight after the occurrence he sent a letter to say he could not pay then, but would as soon as he was able. Two months afterwards, being pressed for payment and being unable, he repudiated the debt. I then offered to allow the matter to be arbitrated by two noblemen, to which he did not even give a reply. I went home the night that I won this contest, thanking God that at last I had gained the power to carry out the purpose for my life—that I should be able to employ means less uncongenial to my tastes and my life would no longer be a lie—that in living out my better nature I might still be of use to the world as well as to myself, The disappointment came upon me with full force and effect which circumstances gave to it—it broke me utterly down.” Signed Stephen Forwood alias Earnest Southey.

In the early part of June 1864, a female described as respectable and very quiet demeanour went to a laundress named Mrs Pettys, in Lavender Road, Battersea, who had a room to let. She said her name was Maria White, and that she had her husband, who was a schoolmaster in the neighbourhood of Holborn, and that she had three sons aged six, eight, and ten, living with their father and with her was her daughter, Annie. She took them in and shortly after Maria told Mrs. Pettys that she had been cohabiting with a man named Ernest Southey, but due to the situation he put them in, she was determined to find a livelihood herself.

Acting on this, Maria became a nurse to two little boys in a family named Armitage, living at Clapham. She left her lodgings on the 10th of July, leaving her daughter under the care of Mrs Pettys, provided for by the kindness of a benevolent. A lady named Desborough resided in Islington. The Armitage family moved to Bayswater, Westminster and Maria went with them.

Mr Armitage had a large house in Melbourne Australia, which required his presence there, the entire family left the Adelphi Hotel on the 24th of July, and sailed from England on the Great Britain the next day, with Maria accompanying them.

Soon after Maria had left Battersea a man called into Mrs Pettys and inquired after her, desiring to know where she had gone and said his name was Ernest Southey, and that he was her husband. Mrs Pettys, knowing the truth, would not divulge her whereabouts. He then appeared very anxious and wanted to take away the little girl, Annie Eliza, who was said to be a very wise and intelligent child for her years; but this was positively denied by Mrs Pettys, who had very naturally taken a great interest in her little charge. Southey then became very indignant, and left, vowing that something shocking and dreadful would happen very shortly.

He then knew for the first time that she had deserted him and, as he said, on doing “something shocking and dreadful'', with the idea of revenge on the woman who had, as he put it ''deserted him forever'' and maybe partly to get revenge on society.

Now we come to the crimes and the circumstances that followed:—

Crime one:

On Saturday 5th August 1865 a respectfully dressed man called at the above-named hotel, and inquired if three children could be accommodated with a bed for a few nights. Being informed that one would be unoccupied he said that would do, there will be 3 children aged 10, 8 and 6

He called again on Monday evening with the three children and saw them to bed.

He told the proprietor of the house, that they were about to proceed to Australia and that the room would only be for a few days.

The next morning the children were downstairs by half past six in the most cheerful mood and stayed in the coffee-room until the arrival of the person who had brought them, which was before eight o'clock.

After breakfast, he left but returned at one o'clock, when the children dined, and again he departed saying he would see them in the evening.

About six o’clock he came again, and the children had tea and bread and butter, Their supposed guardian then said that as they seemed tired and would take them to bed, first, however, he inquired if another room could be provided. So when they went upstairs to bed, the two 2 youngest were put in the room occupied by them previously, and the eldest in the newly acquired chamber.

He then went out, saying he would be back shortly, and he again made his appearance at nine o'clock.

He asked for a candle to see that the children were alright, and after remaining upstairs a short time he left the house, saying that he would return on the following (Wednesday) morning.

He did not return, and as the children were downstairs early the previous morning, some doubt existed as to whether they should be awakened.

Half-past eight arrived, and when one of the chamber-maids entered the first room in which the two younger children had been placed, to her extreme horror, found they were dead.

She immediately raised an alarm, when the proprietor of the hotel and others entered the room in which the eldest child had been placed, and they found that he was also deceased.

Medical assistance and the police were instantly summoned, the surgeon arrived first, and upon his examination of the bodies announced them to have been extinct some hours, the limbs being perfectly rigid and cold.

The appearance of the bodies clearly showed that they had died without much struggling, if any, The youngest child, Alexander had a halfpenny, firmly clenched in his hand.

The children, when brought to the hotel, were reported not to be well dressed, but their manners were open and affable.

They conversed with a waiting boy, and during the conversation said the person who brought them to the hotel, was not their father. They added that they were taken from their father either to go to school or abroad.

The three children were named as Henry White, aged 10 Thomas white, aged eight years and Alexander white, aged six.

It was then reported that a 'painful scene' took place with their father Walter Smallwood White, who was fetched in a cab to the hotel.

After looking at his deceased children, one of whom, was said to have had a smile on his face, his feelings gave way, and with difficulty, he was led downstairs.

The story given by Mr white was, that for some considerable period, he and his wife have been separated, owing to his wife's cohabitation with her Paramour, a billiard marker and betting man, named Earnest Southey.

On the separation, the children were given up to the mother, but then they were returned to him and then, the three deceased were again given up by the sanction of the husband, under the impression that Maria Ann, Southey and the children were going to Australia.

Police began at once to search for the murderer, and police officers in plain clothes were placed in nearly all the London railway stations. The Home Office Department offered a reward of £lOO.

The investigations which were carried out at the hotel led to the discovery that, on the dressing table near the eldest boy was a silk neck scarf crumpled up, and having the appearance on it as if it had been used to wipe up a little fluid. Near the neckcloth was a small bottle, which was believed to contain the poison which was given to the children.

From the fact of the bottle being found in the eldest boy’s room, it is inferred that the two younger children were poisoned first and that the murderer then completed his diabolical crime by getting the eldest boy to drink off the remainder of the drug.

The children were said to be not in good physical condition, the body of Thomas was almost emaciated.

They were all three described as handsome and intelligent looking, their fair complexions and auburn hair giving them an innocent and joyous appearance.

Crime Two:

On Thursday 10th August shortly after nine am, Ramsgate was thrown into a state of intense excitement by a report of a double murder in a Dyer's house on Kings Street.

On Wednesday night, a young Iad knocked at Mr Ellis' house and said he had been sent for two dresses.

Miss Ellis opened the door and told him they were not dressmakers there, and the boy went away.

He had not, however, been gone many minutes, before he returned and asked where Mrs Forwood lived.

He was told the house, and he then went across to her and said he had been sent for two dresses for a gentleman at the "Camden Arms."

Mrs. Forwood told him she did not make themes for gentlemen, but for ladies.

The lad left, and she then went across to her friend, Adelaide Ellis and told her father what had occurred. Remembering the number of anonymous letters which had been received by her, he immediately suggested the probability of there being something dodgy in the proceedings and advised her to go to the Camden Arms, to see the gentleman.

She said she would take his advice, but asked that he would permit his daughter and her friend Adelaide Ellis

to accompany her.

He gave his consent. Mrs Forwood said she felt faint and could not go without taking something, and left the house to get a glen of brandy, but had not even crossed the road before she perceived a man coming down Bellevue Hill, and thinking that she knew his walk, she looked at him again and thought that she recognised him as her husband.

She stepped across to him and said, "Is that you, Stephen?'' to which he replied " Yes, are you my wife? "

She told him she was, and he immediately asked her to accompany him around the back to Belmont.

She declined, giving as a reason that as he had been away for some years, he was a comparative stranger and she did not like being seen out in the evening with strangers.

She then invited him to go into the house of her friend Adelaide Ellis, living in King Street.

He accepted the invitation, and they remained talking in the presence of Adelaide and her father for some time.

Stephen had twice stated that he had something to say to his wife, which he could not say in the presence of strangers, Mr Ellis and Adelaide left the room but went into the shop which adjoins it.

After the lapse of half an hour, Mrs Forwood came into the shop and said that her husband had promised to come again the following morning.

Mr Ellis then went into the sitting room, and Forwood then repeated the promise he had formerly made to his wife and added that he would call shortly after eight o'clock.

He sat down for some time and told his wife and Mr Ellis about the trials he had to undergo during the time he had been away from her, He further said that he had been abroad, and that while away he had saved a sum of £1,170, but had been done out of the whole of it.

He then left, after renewing his promise to come again the next morning.

On Thursday morning, about twenty minutes past eight, Stephen Forwood went to Ellis's house. His wife was there and at the express desire of Stephen, she had her daughter with her.

The child was playing in the yard at the time Stephen appeared, and was called by her mother on his arrival.

The little girl was handed to him by her mother and he said "Is this ours ?" and on being answered with the affirmative, he took her into his arms and embraced her tenderly.

When he entered the room, he said "I had enough upbraiding last night, don't let us have any more of it today.'

Mr Ellis and his daughter were sitting and having some breakfast. He sat down and was offered some but declined and commenced talking.

Shortly before nine, Mr Ellis went into his workshop, and while there Adelaide told Stephen and Mary Ann, that if they had anything to say in private they might want to go upstairs, into another sitting room.

They both went upstairs and had not been there many minutes before their daughter went up to them.

She had hardly got up there when Mr, Ellis and his daughter were startled by two rapid noises of a pistol, and on Adelaide rushing upstairs, she arrived at the landing just in time to see the daughter fall, having been shot by Stephen.

Adelaide called out to her father, who immediately came in, and on rushing upstairs he saw Stephen standing at the top of the stairs, just in the sitting room.

He said “ What have you done, Forwood” and seeing that he had a pistol in his hand, he called on him to give it to him, which he did.

Stephen then had a black moustache and dark whiskers on.

Mr Ellis then saw the feet of Mary Ann, and on looking over the table he saw her head, and that blood was oozing from it. He told Stephen to sit down, and he then noticed that he had neither a moustache nor whiskers.

He asked Forwood where they were, and he said they were under the grate. Mr Ellis looked there, but could not find them, and Stephen then gave them to him.

Mr Ellis then called out to send for the police and a surgeon. Stephen added, “Yes, send for the policeman.”

The police were there almost immediately and he was then given into their custody.

The surgeons were sent for but the victims were past human aid.

On his being apprehended by Superintendent Levick, and when the charge had been read over to him, Stephen Forwood stated that he was also guilty of the murder of the three children in Holborn.

The Holborn Inquest:

An inquest was held on the bodies of the three boys by Dr Hardwicke, deputy of Dr Lankester, coroner for Central Middlesex, at the Queen Anne's Tavern, Red Lion-passage, Holborn,

The following evidence was taken:—

William Stallwood White, of 4, Featherstone-buildings, Holborn, schoolmaster,

I am the father of the three murdered children Henry William was aged ten years, Thomas William was the next, he was nine years and Alexander was eight. I last saw them alive on Monday evening, when they were at my own house in Featherstone buildings. They were living with me up to that time. My son Josiah White, took them to deliver to the hands of Southey, who applied for them to be given up to their mother. I cannot say where Southey was then, and I did not see the boys again until Wednesday when a policeman and a detective called at my house to make inquiries. I answered their questions and accompanied them to the Star Temperance coffee house in Lion Street, and in an upper room I was shown two of the children in one bed; they were both quite dead.

When I saw the two boys, I was told of the death of the third, and subsequently, I saw the third body. I recognised all three children as those who had left me on Monday. I noticed in the room a peculiar smell and was astonished at its occurring so soon after death, and I also noticed a peculiar vivid and spotted appearance of the bodies. The boys looked as though they had died by violent means, but I was not then aware of the cause of their deaths.

I then accompanied the police to fetch my son Josiah, who lives near Victoria Park, and he returned with me, and we went to the police station.

Josiah White, son of the last witness, and residing at 22, Bedford. terrace, Old Ford-road, clerk:

''I saw the three deceased children on Monday evening, when I was at my father’s house, at about six o’clock in the evening. It had been arranged on the Sunday evening that I deliver the children to Mr Southey, who was to take them to their mother. I engaged to meet Southey at the corner of Bedford Road at nine o’clock on Monday night, and I saw him there after waiting about twenty minutes.

He then came running up in a hurry, saying that he had missed a train at the Clapham Junction, that being late had put him out in his engagements, and that he could not take the children as engaged.

I said that if he did not take them my father would think he was humbugging him, and I asked him if he could not get a lodging for them.

He went, or pretended to do so, over to a public house near Hand Court, at my suggestion that he should try and get a bed for them, and he said he could not be there.

We entered a public house, had a glass of ale together, and then walked down Red Lion Street. He went into the Star coffee house, and on coming out he said, “ It is all right; they can be accommodated there.” We then walked down to the Featherstone buildings, and I fetched the boys out.

He shook hands with them and asked them how they were, and I told him that my father did not know that they would be staying so near and that he had better not let them turn up. The arrangement was that they were to go to their mother and then to Australia.

I watched Southey to the end of the passage, which leads to Red Lion Street from Bedford Row until they were out of sight. I had seen Southey twice before, once when he called into my office in the city''.

The next witness was Maria Beale:

''I live at the Star Coffee- House as a Tea-room Maid. I saw the man described as Southey on Tuesday morning at half past eight. He was in the Tea-room with the children. He was there at Dinner time too, when he had dinner with them. He had tea with them later and took them to bed.

On the next morning (Wednesday) I went upstairs and was asked by my mistress to go and see how the boy was in room no 8 He (the eldest) had been unwell. When I went to the room, I found the door locked. I then went to no 6, where the two younger children were and found the door wide open. I went to the bed and said ''are you not getting up then'' and lay my hand on the bed. I found the children were dead.

I went down and told Mr and Miss Clifford, my master and mistress and Mr Clifford came up with me and we went into no 8 and found the eldest boy also dead''.

In reply to a Jury question: ''The children went out at 6.30 - 6.45 on Tuesday morning by themselves and were gone about half an hour. We asked them where they were going and they replied to see their mother but I did not know where. They also went out with the man on Tuesday afternoon''.

Henry Clifford, Landlord of the Star Coffee-house, his daughter Elizabeth Clifford and Elizabeth Maidman, the chambermaid gave corroborative evidence, similar to Maria Beale.

Dr Anthony Roberts of 73 Lambs Conduit Street was then called:

''I was called to the Star Coffee House on Wednesday. In room 6 on the 3rd floor, I found two young boys extended on their backs, I was also shown the back room, which contained the oldest boy, also extended and quite dead. There appeared to be no external marks or bruising on the two older boys and by looking at them, I estimated they had been dead no less than eight hours. A liquid was coming from the mouth and nostrils of a light straw-coloured liquid, slightly odorous. The bottle in the back room with the fluid had a slight white sediment''.

The post-mortems were done about 12 - 14 hours after death. Dr Harley professor of jurisprudence at University College was present. I have preserved the stomachs in separate jars, with the hearts, portions of the liver containing the gall bag, bladder, portions of the spleen and portions of the muscular tissues and delivered them to Dr Harley.

He had received notice from Dr Harley saying the investigation into the boys' death has begun but will not conclude for several days and it may well be wise to adjourn the inquest until these results are given.

The inquest was then adjourned until the following Tuesday.

On Saturday 12 August, In London, the three murdered children, Henry, Thomas, and Alexander White, were buried in Victoria Park Cemetery. (now known as Meath Gardens Public Park) Bethnal Green. The funeral was conducted with comparative privacy in the afternoon.

2nd Inquest

The Inquest for Mary Ann Jemima Forwood and Sarah Emily Frances Forwood was held on the same day as the children's funeral, in the afternoon, before Mr J. N. Montilynn, Esq. (Coroner).

The following gentlemen were sworn on the Jury, Mr J. Hake(foreman) Mr E. Barrow, Mr MeBarg, Mr I. Vinten, Mr J. White, Mr G Tunbridge, Mr N. B Kennard. Mr J. Fells Mr E Pledge, Mr S. Cockburn Mr J. Powell, Mr A. D. Grant. Mr E. Bing, Mr E. Baldwin and Mr R. Woods.

The Jury then proceeded to the Seamans Infirmary to view the bodies, which presented a shocking sight.

The features being much distorted and covered with blood. The woman had received two pistol shots, the first in the right cheek and the second just below the right ear.

The girl had received but one wound, close under the right ear.

On the return of the Jury to the Hall, The Coroner said the only observation he would make was this: that he hoped they would from their minds all that they had hitherto heard based upon the case.

The first witness was William George Tappenden, age 17:

''l am pot-boy at the Camden Arms house. On Wednesday evening about two minutes before eight o'clock a man came to me. He was an old man. He asked me if I would go down to Mr. Ellis, the Dyer, 61, King Street. I could not understand him at first. I thought he told me to ask if Mrs Dressmaker lived there. I went and told him no, and he said "I did not tell you that, I told you, Mrs. Forwood." I went to Mrs Forwood, at 61, King Street. I asked her if she would give me her direction, for a gentleman. She said. "Who is he, I did not know him, Shall I put it down on paper'' I said," If you please." She did so, and I gave it to the gentleman, who was pacing back and forth in front of the Camden Arms

''The gentleman went off towards Kings Street when I gave him the paper. I should know him if I saw his. I did not see him yesterday. He had a beard and moustache. I do not know whether he wore a spectacle*.

He also confirmed that the lady he saw, was the same person who is now dead.

The Next witness was Adelaide Ellis:

''I live at 39, King Street. I know both the deceased. The daughter was eight years old.

On Wednesday evening Mrs. Forwood came in a little after eight, I told her what the boy had said, and she went over to her home. She came in afterwards and said, a gentleman wanted to see her at the "Camden Arms.' She said she did not make dresses for gentlemen but for ladies. My father, having suspicions that it was her husband, advised her to see whether it was him or not. While I was waiting to go with her, she came in with her husband. She said, "I have accidentally met Stephen in the street, let us come in here." She said he wished her to go up Belmont place, as he wished to speak to her. He refused to come in at first, as he said he could not see us. She refused to go up to Belmont Place. My father went to the door, and Forwood and his wife came into our house.

She said, " Whatever you have to say, you can say before Mr. Ellis and his daughter." We asked him where he had been for the last seven years and a half. He made no reply. She told him what she had suffered during his cruel desertion. He said she had not suffered more than he had done.

He said, " I wish to say to you, Polly, what I cannot say in the presence of your friends." She said, " You can say anything before them you wish. If it had not been for Mr. Ellis, I must have perished." He said but very little, except about how cruelly he had been used years ago.

I said that had got nothing to do with it and I begged of him that his conduct for the future would atone for the past in some way towards her.

He repeated his request, and Father and I went into the shop, leaving them alone in that room. About a quarter of an hour after they came into the passage, where we met them. Mrs. Forward said, " Stephen has promised to come at eight o'clock in the morning." I said, "You will be sure to come," and he said, " Yes, what I said, I keep my word."

Mrs Forwwod left then, and I watched her go home. As soon as she got in her house, I let him out. He did not shake hands with her in my presence. We Did not know where he was staying. He went up Belle-vue-hall.

On Thursday morning about a quarter to eight Mrs. Forward came over to our house, and her daughter came in soon after.

Forwood came in about twenty minutes past eight o'clock. He walked in. (The witness here became visibly affected, and could not proceed for about two minutes.) When he came in he seemed quiet. I asked if he would have breakfast, and he said he had breakfast. His wife was having breakfast.

I told them after, "If you have anything to say, you can go upstairs by yourselves." They went by themselves. Forwood said, "Let the child go with us." We would not let her go then. I then sent the child home, and she went.

I went upstairs to make the beds, and Mrs. Forwood sent my cousin for the child. I saw the child come over. When I came downstairs, the child was at the bottom. She was waiting, and I said go upstairs, they want you. She went up.

I went into the shop. The child had not been there for five minutes, I heard the report of firearms. I heard a heavy fall and a rush to the door. I ran upstairs to see what was the matter, and I saw the child rolling down four stairs. She was bleeding from the heed. She had been shot.

I was going to take hold of the child when Forward placed the pistol close to my mouth. I said "Forward, what are you doing ?' He said nothing. I ran down and called Father.

I cannot say that he fired at the child again. Father was in his dye house, across the yard. While I was going for him, I heard a second shot and my Father came and went upstairs.

I went and picked the child It on the landing. She was bleeding very much from all parts of her head. She was quite dead. I took her down into the parlour and sent for Mr. Curling, surgeon.

I did not go up again for some time. It was after Mr. Curling had come. When I got there, I saw Mrs. Forwood lying there and she was quite dead. She had two wounds on her head.

I did not see him after my father had had him taken away.

By the Coroner: Forwood, when he came in the morning, he had a moustache and beard on.

She replied: He had them on when I saw him on the stairs.

William Ellis was next examined and repeated the evidence given before the Bench on the previous day.

In reply to a question by the Jury: ''Forwood did not attempt to make his escape'',

Mr Ellis continues: ''He did not state why he expected to be apprehended. When Forwood came in the morning and told his wife he had not come for more disdain like the night before, she replied What else could you expect when you left me in that destitute state''

The witness, during the time he was giving his evidence, was several times deeply affected, and the Coroner was compelled to allow him a few seconds to recover his composure.

Mr Hicks, the surgeon gave his evidence:

''I was called into Mr Ellis' house yesterday morning about 25 minutes past nine o'clock. On going upstairs into the front sitting room, I saw the body of a female quite dead. She was lying on her left side. She had two wounds on the right side of her neck, one small circular wound about a quarter of an inch in diameter, two inches behind the oar, from which a small portion of her brain was protruding. The other wound was an inch in front of the ear, and there was an opening in the right eyelid. There was no exit from the wound behind the ear. The cause of the wounds was a gunshot. The skin around the first wound was very much singed. These wounds were the cause of her death. She must have dropped as she was shot, death being instantaneous.

I then examined the body of a female child who had her hat on. Blood had issued from the mouth and nose, and on moving the hat I found a large wound on the side of the skull. There was a wound on each side, and the brain was protruding in large quantities. Those wounds were the cause of death. I saw a small pistol bullet lying on the floor near the child. The bullet had been conical but was then flattened.

The deceased was represented to me as Mrs Forwood and her daughter.

The wounds on Mrs. Forward must have been made by two distinct shots. I cannot say whether there was more than one discharge at the head of the child''.

P.C. Drayson was the next witness:

''I was called to the house of Mr. Ellis, in King Street, on Thursday morning at about half past nine. I went to the house and saw a little child lying in the back room, a corpse. She was bleeding from a wound in the head. I went upstairs and saw a pool of blood on the landing. As soon as I entered the room I saw the body of Mrs. Forward lying on her left side. She was dead.

Mr. Ellis and Stephen Forwood were in the room. Ellis said to me, "Policeman, will you take charge of these "' and handed me a moustache, a pair of whiskers, and a pair of glasses.

The prisoner was not given into my custody, my sergeant was there then. Forwood did not say anything in my presence. He was very quiet. When the pistol was handed to me it was quite warm''.

Superintendent Levick then gave evidence:

''I was sent for on Thursday morning between half-past nine and a quarter to ten o'clock to go to Mr. Ellis' house. I went, and on my arrival, I saw a female child lying on the floor in the back room of the house. I believe the child to be the same as the one whose body we have seen today. That child when I saw her was dead. I then went upstairs, and on the landing saw a pool of blood. On entering the sitting room I saw a female lying dead on the floor: that person I believe to be Mrs. Forwood, whose body you have viewed today. There was a pool of blood close to her head.

Forwood was then sitting on the sofa. I asked him his name, and he said 'My name is Stephen Forwood." I then recognised him, as I had known him some years ago. He then said "And I have lately gone by the name of Walter Southey." I asked his age. He replied that he was 35. Pointing to the body on the floor I said " Who's this'' He said, "It is my lawful married wife." I asked her name, and he said "Mary Ann Jemima Forwood." I made a note of it at the time. I asked whose child it was lying downstairs, and he said it was his child, and that her name was Emily Sarah Frances Forwood, who was eight years old, and that his wife was 35. I then said to him "Now I am going to charge you with the wilful murder of your wife and child lying dead here, but you are not obliged to make me any answer.'He said," Mr. Liviek, if you knew all you would not think so bad of me as it appears." I asked the constables if he had been searched, and he handed me a razor. I saw lying on the table opposite to him six pistol ball cartridges, two pocketbooks, some caps, hill-a-sovereign, Is. 3d. in silver, and 9d. in copper, which I produce. He wished that some of the papers might be taken care of. He made no other remarks then. I directed him to be taken to the station. He made a statement before the Magistrates''.

The Coroner: ''I don't want to hear anything of that. I have searched the pocketbooks, and there is nothing there in material to this inquest''.

The Coroner asked if there were any further witnesses to call, and having been answered in the negative, the Coroner was about, to sum up, when Inspector Tanner, of the Metropolitan Police, said, he wished to make an application now. The Coroner asked .''Who are you?''

Inspector Tanner: ''I am Inspector Tanner, of the Metropolitan police, and I am sent here to ask that the prisoner may be forwarded to London, to be tried for a crime which he has committed there, I only desire to show the difficulties in the case if you issue your warrant to-day. I would suggest that you should adjourn your enquiry today without coming to any conclusion, so that I may make my application to the Magistrates here tomorrow, to order his removal. If your warrant today it will be in the hand, of the keeper of the gaol, and we shall not be able to get at him''.

The Coroner: ''What is your application then?''

Inspector Tanner: ''That you adjourn your enquiry over tomorrow. I may say that I have seen Mr Crofton, the Chairman of the Bench, and he sees so objection to my application. If you grant my application, we shall take the prisoner to London and then, if he is acquitted, and it is not at all likely that he will be, your warrant, being in the hands of your officer, can detain him; but if you on, and issue your warrant, we, not be able to take him''.

The Coroner: ''You could remove him by writ of habeas corpus''.

Inspector Tanner: ''I think not. We could from a Magistrates' warrant, but your warrant is much more powerful. By your warrant, he is taken before a Judge at assizes, without going before a Grand Jury. If you issue your writ, the keeper of the gaol would not deliver him up on a writ of habeas corpus, as you compel to bring him before a Judge at the Assizes. If we have him at the Central Criminal Court the ends of justice would not be thwarted, and he would be tried directly, whereas, if you issue your writ, he will have to wait until next March''.

The Coroner: ''But it will mean summoning the jury again''.

Inspector Tanner: ''But only for about a quarter of an hour, and that is not much''.

The coroner having consulted the jury said, ''I have heard your application, the majority of the jury is opposed to an adjournment, and I must, therefore, decline to adjourn''

The Coroner then proceeded to sum up. He said, he would, if the jury thought proper, read the whole of the evidence over to them. (The jury having intimated that they did not desire this, he proceeded).

They had met there that day, to inquire "how, when, where, and by what means" the unfortunate victims had met their death. Pausing over the first part of the evidence which had been taken, he would direct their attention to the evidence as to the meeting on Thursday morning, and from that, it was evident, that the poor creatures had died from the effects of gunshot wounds, and that those wounds were inflicted by Stephen Forwood. If they were satisfied with this fact, they could not do otherwise than return a verdict of murder, or manslaughter. In this case, there was no proof of there having been any struggle, and that through that the victims were killed by accident. If not, the jury could not do other than return a verdict of wilful murder.

The jury then retired, and after an absence of three minutes, returned a verdict of wilful murder against Stephen Forwood.

The Coroner then issued his inquisition for the committal of the prisoner to the next Maidstone Assizes. The proceedings, which had lasted upwards of four hours, then terminated.

On Friday evening on the 11th of August, the bodies of Mrs Forwood and her little daughter were removed from the Seamans Infirmary to the residence of Mr Ellis and on Sunday 13th August were buried in St. George's Churchyard, Ramsgate. A great number of people followed the funeral, and considerable feeling was manifested.

The clergyman was said to have taken the occasion at the grave to address a few pertinent observations to those assembled when he had concluded the service.

Much sympathy was given to Mr Ellis, who in his own words relating to Mrs Forwood said ''I looked upon and treated her as my daughter''

The prisoner was brought before the magistrates for charge and commital at Noon.

Before any witnesses were called the prisoner addressed the magistrates and said ''I have here papers from Sir Richard Mayne, which I hope you will permit me to read to you. I have a reason for it. If you will grant me to read it, I think it will justify my asking it. Immediately I was brought to the station, I asked for some paper a pen and some ink so that I may draw up a statement but it was not yet finished. I also made a statement to the sergeant in charge. I enquired whether he had heard of the murdered children in London. My reason for asking the question was that previous to my being charged with this crime, I was guilty of their murders. I hope that this be taken as communication to Sir Richard Haynes and also that is it made voluntarily.

The chairman: you had better wait until such time we have heard all evidence

The following evidence was then taken:—

William Ellis was then called and deposed to the facts as he said at the inquest.

He also added that when he asked Forwood what he had done he replied ''I tell you this Mr Ellis, she is relieved from all trouble and care, I have done this out of charity'' Mr Ellis replied that by committing a double murder?'' Forwood replied ''Yes, and I tell you she has less to bear now as I am committed to death, when I get back to London.''

The Prisoner again interrupted and begged them to allow him to read his statement which he had written, while in custody.

They acceded to this. The statement was not lengthy, was said to be lucid and pathetic and brought tears to the eyes of many in the court.

''To the Earl of Dudley, of Dudley Ward, he ascribed all his misfortunes and then with emphasis used the names Lord Palmerston, Lord Derby, lord Stanley and all nobility. He admitted to taking the three children to the house in Holborn and then murdering them, assigning his reason being, the treatment he had been subjected to at the hands of Lord Dudley.

Adjourned examination of the Prisoner.

Stephen Forwood, alias Ernest Southey, was re-examined at Ramsgate Town-hall, on the charge of having wilfully murdered Mary Anne Jemima Forwood, his wife, and Emily Francis Forwood, his child.

The magistrates present were:—Mr. A. Crofton, (chairman), Sir B, M. Coghlan, K.C.B., the Rev. G. W. Sicklemere, Mr B. Sicklemere, Mr G. E. Hannan, Mr Thomas Whitehead, Mr G. C. H. Wilkie, & Mr T. H. G. Snowden

The clerk to the bench conducted the examination. Inspector Tanner, of the Metropolitan Detective Force, Scotland-yard, was present on behalf of the London police authorities.

Mr. Gold, Jr., from the firm of Gold and Son, solicitors, No. 2, Serjeant’s-inn, Chancery Lane, attended to watch the case for the accused.

The prisoner was brought up from the prison at Sandwich, in the custody of Mr Lewis Hill, the governor, and he had in his hand a roll of manuscript, from which it was surmised he intended to quote copiously during the proceedings.

At a quarter before eleven, the doors of the room were opened and the public was admitted, the spacious room being speedily filled with an excited audience. ’

Robert Hicks, the surgeon, was called and said he was sent for about a quarter past nine on Thursday morning, and found, at the house of Mr Ellis, the bodies of the woman and child. The witness repeated the evidence given at the examination on Thursday. The cause of death in each case was gunshot wounds.

William George Laffenden said: ''I am potboy at the Camden Arms. On Wednesday evening, about eight o’clock, or a few minutes after that, a gentleman called me into the smoking room and asked me if I would take a message''.

The Prisoner interrupts with great vehemence: ''I protest against my photograph being taken through that window. l am an innocent man and am to be made a show of.

The Chairman: Certainly; it shall not be done if you object to it.

Examination resumed: and the boy repeated the same testimony as in the inquest.

Sergeant Levick, having been sworn, repeated his evidence as given at the inquest. He said in addition:

''I asked the ages of the woman and the child. When I told him the charge I cautioned him that he was not obliged to say anything. He replied, addressing g me by name, that if I knew all I should not think him so bad,” or it so bad,” as it appeared. In addition to the matters referred to at the inquest as found on him. There was a penknife. The pocketbook had sundry papers in it. I had him removed to the station, and he asked me there if I had received any communication from Sir Richard Aayne as to the death of three children in London.

I said I had not, but should probably do so. He said he had a statement to make, but he was not sufficiently collected. I left him for about an hour, and he then applied for writing materials, which being supplied, he wrote these two papers, which he wished to be transmitted to Sir Richard Hiayno. The papers are as I received them. I have not read them. I then said, I also charge you with the murder of three children at Starr’s coffee-house, Red Lion-street, Holborn.

He asked whether he would be allowed his election as to which charge he was to be tried on. I told him I did not know''.

Police - constable William Drayson said he was called to Mr Ellis’s house on Thursday and went with other constables. He was deposed to find the bodies, as already reported.

Miss Adelaide Ellis repeated her statement made at the inquest.

Sergeant Levick said that was all the evidence.

Mr. Gold, after some consultation with Forwood, said that he (the accused) wished to ask for a remand, but he (Mr. Gold) did not know on what grounds.

The Chairman: ''We must have a reason for granting a remand. The prosecution has no further evidence'',

A further consultation then took place between Forwood and his solicitor, and Mr Gold said the reason the accused was assigned to ask for remand was that he might be able to produce before the bench certain documents being on his case. He (Mr Gold) was bound, of course, to state the wishes of his client, but felt sure it was only wasting the time of the bench to make such an application. He only stated the simple fact and the wish of the accused.

Forwood spoke (in a loud tone): ''The documents which I wish to place before you are not understood by you in a proper light. They are documents by which I charge the guilt charged upon me, upon others. I say it has been caused by others, and any acts caused, I say on behalf of justice any person accused is entitled to show why he does that which conscientiously devolves upon others, and I ask that I may have the opportunity of proving that others have''.

The Chairman stopped Forwood, who was rambling on in an increasingly excited manner: ''You must understand, Forwood, that the Bench here is not trying you; you will be sent for trial by a jury of your countrymen, and I may further say that we have nothing to do with the murder of the three children in London''.

Forwood: ''But I claim the right here and everywhere in the name of truth and justice''.

The Chairman: ''We cannot hear you. We peremptorily refuse any remand, and you are committed to Sandwich Gaol, and you will tried at the next assizes at Maidstone for the wilful murder of your wife and child—your daughter. I may say publicly that the prisoner made an application to me as to whether he should be tried at Maidstone or in London. We have nothing to do with that, that rests entirely with the Government, and if they wish to try him in London they have the power to do so and remove him under habeas corpus''.

Mr. Gold: ''The prisoner may also claim that under the Palmer Act. If he is advised by me he will say nothing''.

Forwood, said loudly: ''I must act on my judgment. My conscience will teach me what is best for my good, and I must do as I like''.

The Chairman: ''We cannot hear you any further. Let him be removed''.

The prisoner then stooped down to speak to his solicitor, and a woman was put to the bar charged with stealing a purse, considerable confusion arose, and as the prisoner was again about to address the bench, two of the policemen took him by the arms and led him out, but as he crossed the floor of the court he lifted his hands and arms, shouting, ''I protest in the name of moral truth and justice I am not doing my dnt{.ut) myself or the cause of holly justice if I do not protest against my committal. It is —— "At these words, the door of the room was closed on him. Some hissing was uttered as he left the court, but it was said that the very great crowd behaved with great decorum.

The paper he gave the Sergeant Levick requesting it to be forwarded on the Friday evening :

Ramsgate 10th August

To Mr. Gregory Cricketers Putney

In prison - my life is gone - have dreadful charges to answer to prove my innocence. See my Fulham friend and get him to assist. I shall forever remember your kindness and gratitude - yours Errnest Southey.

It was also noted that the Home Secretary had written to the Chairman of the bench on the subject of removal of the prisoner to London to stand trial for the 3 children murdered and the magistrates had consulted before taking their seats and agreed to his removal into the hands of inspector Tanner but the Governor of Sandwich Gaol informed them however, that he had no power to give the prisoner up, as the coroner had ordered his detention via two separate warrants.

The home office will take no further action to get the prisoner removed from Kent to London for the trial but the prisoner, however, has the power under the Palmers Act to change the venue to the central criminal court.

On the Saturday, after he was removed from the courtroom, he was visited by a gentleman, who he had met in town life a few years prior. They had a half-hour conversation, in which the prisoner spoke earnestly. He said the frowns of life would have been showered onto his wife and daughter for his misdeeds and he considered the best thing he could do was put them out of this world. He also confessed to having carried a pistol around for the few days prior, with the chamber loaded and he was within a yard or two of ''Lord Dudley'' more than once, having made up his mind to shoot him but did not do it, as he hated the man and it would have been a vindictive act. He expressed great anxiety at being tried in London. He strongly deprecated any effort he made on his behalf, as he did not want his life to be saved, and that would be the greatest injury for anyone to do this, his only desire is that he should be put right in the minds of the public. He refuted any notion of him suffering from madness.

On his journey back to Sandwich gaol, they passed the house at Ellington where he was born and he pointed it out to the policeman his conduct throughout the journey was said to be anything but consistent with the awful situation he was in.

The adjourned inquest on the bodies of the murdered children. Henry William White, William Thomas White, and Alexander White resumed on Tuesday 29th August at the Holborn Union Boardroom, before Dr Hardwick, the deputy coroner.

Mr. E. T. Smith, barrister, appeared for Southey.

Dr Lankester said he had seen the Under Secretary of State Southey's appearance at the inquest, and he understood that his committal by the coroner of Ramsgate rendered it impossible to have him before them.

Inspector Levick, of the Ramsgate Police, said:

''I am an inspector of the police force at Ramsgate. I know the man Southey. On the morning of the 10th of August, I apprehended a man who gave his name Stephen Forwood but said that lately, he had gone the name of Walter Southey. He was brought to the police station at Ramsgate on the charge of murdering his wife and child. Whilst there; immediately after his arrival, he asked if I had any communication from Sir R. Mayne. I said ''No, but I may have." He said, "Then wish to make a statement, but I am not sufficiently collected." That was his expression. I left him, and on passing down the street I saw the death of three children in Red Lion Street announced, I bought a paper, and then I saw a man named Southey was suspected of murdering the children. I returned to the police office, and Southey was brought into the justice room. His real name is Forwood and comes from a quarter of a mile from Ramsgate. I gave him some paper, and I said, in addition to the murder of his wife and child, he was charged with the murder of three children at Starr's coffee-house, in Red Lion Street. He said it was on this he desired to write a communication, and asked it to be sent to Sir R. Mayne. I left him writing for more than an hour. He was then brought before the Ramsgate magistrates and remanded on the Ramsgate charge and applied to the justices for leave to read this paper in open court. He was duly warned not to read it but he did. I have put this in.

The Deputy Coroner: ''Is it a copy?

Inspector Levick: ''He wrote copies. I swear I received the papers from Southey. I saw him writing them. I gave him the paper, and this is the document. (He then read the statement of Southey, which had been given to him at Ramsgate), He had since received a letter from Southey asking for a photograph of the lady, and a brass plate on which his name was engraved.

The Coroner said that there was a letter to Inspector Levick, signed Forwood or Southey.

Deputy Coroner: That was all the evidence that they should give them.

Mr. Smith said that Inspector Thompson had in his possession a letter from Southey to a woman with whom a child of Mrs. White lived. (Mrs Bettys) He promised to produce that letter but was not present.

Dr. Lankester said he did not see any need to do so. Southey's life was in jeopardy there, but probably this inquiry might be adjourned until after his trial. But he was as secure of conviction on the first murder, as he was on the second. If acquitted would immediately be re-apprehended, and on the other, he would be tried on their verdict. If they brought a verdict against him of wilful murder for the three children they could not punish him, and it was a question for them to consider whether they ought to return a verdict of wilful murder.

Arthur BlaxhalL, a chemist took the stand:

''I carry on business at 309, Holborn. I saw Southey about half-past eight on Tuesday, the 8th. he came and asked me to make him a bottle of mixture for a child nine years old. He said the boy was stopping with some friends of his and they had neglected him; he was suffering from diarrhoea. He asked me for a chalk mixture and asked what was the wholesale price of Sheil's hydrochloric acid, and I said 8s. Per stone''.

Cross-examined by Mr Smith:

''Southey called on me on Tuesday, the 8th of August. I do not pretend to say that Southey was the man who poisoned the children at Starr's coffee house. I know my bottles were found at Starr's after the death of the children! The bottles were shown to me by the police. I cannot say what kind of man he was. I have seen the chalk mixture. I cannot tell whether he was an old man or a fair man. I told the inspector I had not noticed him much, and I do not know the man but my bottle was found in the children's room.

The Deputy Coroner said this was the end of the evidence, and it was for them to find a verdict.

Mr Smith said Southey had denied all knowledge of the murder of the children and thought an application made to the law would result in his removal to London.

The jury then retired and after half an hour's absence returned a verdict of wilful murder against W. S. Southey, of Thomas William White, by the administration of hydrochloric acid. That copy of the verdict was sent to the archives of the session, and the other to the Old Bailey, should he be indicted on this verdict.

The following letter was read from Southey, which was written from Sandwich prison to Inspector Levick:

Sandwich Prison, Aug. 14, 1865.

" Sir,—From the anxiety which was evinced to get possession of my photograph on Saturday, and the dishonest means employed, I have been led to fear that such measures may be employed to get possession of the photograph of a lady which was in my pocket-book when left with you, and which has not been restored to me. Please inform me whether this has been detained in your possession the whole time, so that if not, and copies have been taken, I may give the information to my solicitor to have a stop put to any such illegal use being made of the same. —I am. Sir. Yours respectfully, "E. W. Southey, formerly called Stephen Forward.

His wife Mary and daughters funeral too place on 13 Aug 1865 at St George's Church, Ramsgate, Kent, a solemn time for those close tothem..

To Inspector Levick, Ramsgate." The following letter was written by the prisoner Southey with the intention of its being handed to the coroner, but as Dr. Lankester directed the jury there was sufficient evidence of identity for them to return a verdict, so the document was not produced:—

"Sandwich Prison, Aug. 27, 1865.

To the Coroner and Jury holding an inquest at the Queen's Arms Tavern, Red Lion-passage, Holborn, London, on the deaths of three children, which took place at the Star Coffee-house, Red Lion-street, Holborn, London, on the 8th of August, '65.

" Gentlemen,—l Ernest Southey, formerly called Stephen Forward, hereby requests to be allowed to attend before you, so that I may give information regarding the deaths of three children, and by whom it was caused. It will, I am sure, be evident to you, from the declaration that I have heard made public that the children have been in my charge, and also from the published statement that there was no evidence to prove that the children were seen by anyone after I left them in their bedroom at night until they were found lifeless in the morning, that it may in my power to give conclusive evidence as to what caused their deaths, and by whom it was caused. It is in my power to give such testimony, and if you will obtain the necessary authority for my appearing before von, it is my wish to give such testimony. I feel that it would be impossible for me to place before you a written declaration of the evidence I have to give and that you only can obtain clear, foil, and true knowledge of the facts of the case by my being allowed to verbally state them to you, that you may question me on any points not clearly understood, and any seeming discrepancy of statement may be explained and cleared away. Looking to the extreme probability that the investigation which you hold will be the only judicial one held the matter, feel that it is especially due to the public mind that they should have my testimony at present, and so have all doubt upon the point' cleared as to whether those who have been guilty of the crime are not at large in society. I moreover feel that it is especially due to you that you should have your minds relieved from the uncertainty which at present enshrouds the matter, that you may return a clear and explicit verdict, without any scruple or doubt resting upon your conscience to cause you pain. I feel that it is due to the cause of truth and justice that I should give my evidence, and therefore tender you this offer of the same.—l am, Gentlemen, yours respectfully, W. Southey, formerly called Stephen Forward. << p.s.—if there is not time before your next meeting to obtain the necessary authority for my presence, and you choose to make another adjournment my offer will hold open the same. "E. W. S.''

Southey eventually stood trial on 18th December 1865 for the murder of the eldest boy William Henry White and was found guilty and sentenced to Hang, so he would not stand trial for the murder of his wife and daughter.

After his condemnation, he wrote:

“If the solemn preparation by me for eternity is a duty recognised and urged upon me by the state its conduct in certain respects is a direct denial, and even profane a mockery thereof. The constant presence of a second person, combined as it is with a light that always kept burning in the room, renders it impossible for me to realise that isolation from the world—that solemn feeling of being entirely alone with God, which I have times that the deep and blessed experiences of the are passed. The materialism present seems to annul or absorb my volitions as if the soul being satisfied had no power to resist the magnetic animal influence. It constantly sinks and chains me down to its low level when I am in communion with the Rising from the Dead—when I ask Him to reveal to me if He is the way—when I would be pouring out my soul to him for His compassion and help. It is putting an impassable barrier between me and heaven, which we can only get there by ourselves, which precludes me from the use of those means It is as if the State, having heinously persecuted me and driven me out of this life, puts, with satanic malignity, by its regulations, an individual to stand and watch that I do not escape its cruel clutches, by reaching heaven before my time, and to pull me down in any attempt I might make to get there. I wish to be left alone with God !”

Forward never admitted that the murders he committed were crimes. He appeared to think that he has done a service to the community.

Although his admissions proved that he led a most irregular and immortal life, he always spoke as if he were more sinned against than sinned and that necessity compelled him to perform the acts he did. The lack of parents at a young age, no doubt didn't help.

The following is a copy of Forwood's letter to Mrs White, the mother of the three children, which he had hurriedly written after he had committed the crime:.

“Annie, Annie, my poor, dear Annie! My beloved wife. I could not bear up any longer. Do not shrink from me. It was an act of true kind mercy. If there is one act in the past, which you have not already ceased to remember, as a tender companion, true kindness and love—if there is one act of my life towards you, which you with like feeling still remember, put it side by side with what has now happened. Can you have seen as I saw, and foresaw, you would once more bless me for having done, what I have saved you the terrible pain of doing yourself, what you have before thought of doing and wished and would have done today, without the power to carry it out. Thank God there is no evident suffering. I was spared that in full anguish. Annie, I could bear up no longer. I had not one hope, not one joy left me. I did not wish to reproach you, my dear wife, for this you are and must be. When I first got them (meaning possession of the children)—I felt my heart so moved towards them that I thought I would send word for you to come to me, and we would toil on for them, but there were many reasons which made it impossible. Among the rest, I could not communicate with you even. The poor dear little things seemed as if, even on there they thought of our union, and were united with me, and felt that love which links us forever— yes, forever. If anything could kill affection, what I have passed through in the last month would do it. You, Annie, whatever may come, cannot cease to love me. Annie (here the words are illegible) - by one belief and by one understanding. But the large dark soft eyes seemed as if they conveyed a medicine to me - that inexpressible loving gaze—the deepest liveliest memory of my life which belongs to me. Even at the last he turned them upon me, and seemed to bless me as he smiled, and affectionately fell upon me, as if by some magic charm of sympathy. This came from you. Poor miserable man! After all, what do we know of spiritual affinities? One went to rest, like a poor, tired old man—ay, even as I shall. He seemed ill, wearied, and willing to go to rest. Nature seemed herself to acquiesce. The middle one (thine) seemed to be even as the risen soul has always been, nonchalant, gentle, and impressive. And so my risen soul has passed through this other fierce and dreadful trial. It almost seems as if my very capacity to bear suffering causes it to come to me. They did not suffer. You can tell somewhat what I must have endured. But, Annie, pity me. What have I got before me? Do not leave me to bear it all alone. Help me to finish. Do not desert me in my awful need. Will you not come to me? Come with me. Help me to achieve my purpose. You know it is high, noble, and honourable. To share and complete my triumph will save you suffering unenviable, and far, far greater than you will know at present. Will you not trust him who has never deceived you? - Who has been a true husband, who will be to latest moment of his life? A parcel lies for you, addressed Mrs S—, where I went to play the evening you were off at H —. It contains what I used, and is a painless agent. And now, once more, my wife—my poor Annie, clinging to you like an infant, unable to cease of you, ever constantly calling on your loved memory and name, endeared once more. Annie, I, yes, I, God-forgotten, man-despised, and woman hated wretch, turn, and in my soul’s deepest feelings, I breathe an ardent, blessing upon you. Look back until you know what I am. Do not wrong me, nor let others do so. Let judgment, not feeling, measure my doings. God bless you as I bless you.

“E. ( Ernest)

The warrant for the execution: was received at Maidstone and read over to him. He remained perfectly indifferent during that time. He then addressed the governor in the same affected tone of voice in which he spoke during the trial, and said, “ Major Bannister, will you favour me with a sight of the document by which a fellow creature is to be conveyed to another world?’ The Major then handed him the warrant, which merely formally states that the prisoner was convicted in due form of the law of the crime of wilful murder and that he was thereupon ordered to be hanged by the neck until he was dead, and that this sentence was to be carried out on the 11th January and Southey very carefully perused it, then handed it back to Major Bannister and smiled, but did not make any further observation.

After the passing of the sentence Mr. Ormerod, with the Rev. Shirley Woolmer, were most untiring in their exertions on behalf of the culprit, believing from their impressions that he was insane.

Mr Ormerod had interviews with Lord Hardinge, Mr J. Whatman, Esq., M. P. and other Magistrates, with the view of instituting an investigation into the culprit’s state of mind.

A requisition, signed by several magistrates and gentleman, was forwarded to Sir G. Grey, asking for a commission of inquiry under the Townley Act and at numerously attended general sessions meeting of county magistrates, a letter was read from Mr Ormerod, asking for a suspension of sentence and further inquiry into Southey’s sanity.

The Rev. Shirley Woolmer attended before them, expressed his opinion into Forwoods insanity, and asked that Dr. Kirkman, and the surgeon to the Kent Lunatic Asylum at Barming, should be allowed to see him.

The request having been granted, Dr Kirkman sat with Southey for two hours and reported the result of his interview to the magistrates assembled, whereupon they called for Major Bannister, the governor to the gaol, to proceed by the first train to the Home Secretary with a sealed packet and he was not deemed insane.

On Sunday 7th January, Forwood made the following declaration, before going to the chapel:

“My fellowmen feel it rests upon me duty to the Creator, as well as the highest duty towards you, that I should make a declaration of the Great Father of the Universe, having been most graciously, most mercifully pleased to restore me into his blessed truth, as given us by him in the divinely inspired revelation of the Bible. I therefore come here today and desire to make an acknowledgement of this, my faith, by joining with you in public worship of the Almighty God. I desire to acknowledge and declare my clear and full conviction that the overwhelming mass of troubles which have been the means of bringing about my sad and untimely end, by which my life is about to be brought to a close, are directly traceable to my having lost, in my early years, the guiding and soothing belief in the truth of the Christian religion.

He also wrote the following letter, “FOR THE PUBLIC:

“Judge not! I am persuaded about our social justice that if England could see the cruel and vast amount of injustice that is done in her courts of law or justice, which I believe on the whole to almost counterbalance the amount of justice achieved if we look at it in its whole breadth and length, and what it costs the nation, and the injustice the nation suffers in the failure. I believe if the nation could at once grasp the whole iniquitous fact—the vastly horrible fact as it lies under the surface—it would in one mightily act rise and sweep away the whole mass of corruption, and say, ‘If we cannot even improvise a better system, we will at least no longer create as much evil as we remedy, by retaining this rotten fabric.’ Done thus suddenly t suffering must result. But, Englishmen! It will tumble down of itself, thus suddenly, someday, if you do not take it down and build up a better. The foundations are good, but the shocks of violence and the wear of time render renewal necessary here, as in all else of this mutable world. England! If you would only look into this matter, and see how often the sinned against suffer in thy courts, and the multitude of thy decisions reversed when subsequently appealed against before the throne of God, you would ponder on these my words, and in the end acquiesce in the truth spoken by Him most wise, most holy, most just. ‘Judge not, but Love one another.’ England! Virtue, not wealth, is the true standard of a nation You are gradually forgetting this; the end will be ruin. It is this which is giving exhausting feverish excitement to your national life —this mania to get rich. It is no longer ‘He is noble or virtuous’ but ‘ He is rich.’ This greed for gold is poisoning your moral life. Fellow man’s labour is solely looked on as a commodity—‘ buy life in the dearest, sell in the cheapest. In place of ‘each seeks not his own but good.’ Sacred life falling in value, a suffering pauper or outcast, untaught the belief in the sacredness of human life, by finding that nobody cares whether he lives or dies, whether he kills himself to escape his miseries, or whether he does not; whether to prevent his family from sinking do into misery and vice, to become a curse to themselves and the world, he puts them to death and breaks his own heart in the deed, it matters not, he feels it matters not, he cries to you to hear his case in vain. He cried out Life is not sacred!’ in his frenzied anguish. Practically your answer is ‘Too much of life, not enough sold, give me more gold!’ You jingle your bags of gold to his ear when he comes to you and says, Without you fulfilling the duties of mutual help to me, the sufferings of my position are so fearful that I cannot live; I cannot leave my family to suffer, I am all but mad.’ You jingle the bags of gold, but you do not pretend to open them. He is starving; his brain is one whirlin fantasy of flame. He has a deadly weapon in his hands; he uses them, they do their awful work, and at once you offer £100 reward for his capture: punish, but not help him. Pounce down upon him, he has fallen wounded to death! He has no friends, don’t let him tell the truth; don’t let him have even a trial, put him to death! Yes, this is a fact—sad fact. You put to death one of those men whom you so need and desire after one who, raised by suffering above the mere love of life or fear of death, would have gladly wholly given himself for the welfare of his fellow man Yes, you have well meaningly but mistakenly slain one of whom you stand specially in need of such. May my earnest yearnings for your welfare have beyond this earth the effect I sought to give them here. May my death lead you to such deep scrutiny of your social ill,s as I sought in life to awaken you too. I have striven and still strive to love men in His spirit who laid down His life for all men.

E. W. SOUTHEY.

On Monday 8th January, the chaplain put questions to Forwood and elicited the following replies:—

Chaplain:—Do you acknowledge the sinfulness of those crimes for which you are about to suffer?

Forwood:—Before I can answer those questions I must separate man’s laws from God’s laws. What I have given you has always been the truth, and I will give it anew, according to the new creature which is being formed within me. The struggle of my soul yesterday and today has been the culminating belief in Jesus Christ, and you will see my thoughts on this point today, written on the margins of the books (religious books lent by the chaplain).

Chaplain: Do you acknowledge the motives under which you acted, in regards to this murder, being sinful?

Forwood (with much agitation):—The acts at the by me and the acts as now viewed by me in Christ, do so now appear regarding my being responsible for them. “God does not judge us by the laws of our country. Hence when a man does an act, believing it to be right, his measure of responsibility for his act is determined by the purity of his motives. My acts, in putting my three adopted children and Mrs Forward and her daughter to death, were prompted by motive, which, as far as a keen self-analysis has enabled me to determine, were of the nature of virtue, but I now feel that all human virtue out of Christ is sin. I acknowledge that every act of my life is a sin—that which by the human standard is called the highest act of virtue, as well as that which by the same standard is called a crime.

Rev. Shirley Woolmer: Do you acknowledge the justice of the sentence of the law?

Forwood (emphatically):—No; because I feel the acts in their latent quality are recognitions of right by a higher standard of right than that set up by society, by which He judges the law. Human law, as a standard, is only such an embodiment of right as the present degree of the people's enlightenment, under a strong sense of evil, has forced them to ask from the State. Hence human law is always derived from the average intelligence and virtuous condition of the people. The acts in themselves are in the light of the degree of justice which the law acknowledges as virtuous and not criminal. The law is thereby precluded from condemning them.

On Wednesday 10th January, Forwood sat writing till past midnight and woke at about four, on the following morning.

At eight o'clock he was visited by the Rev. Shirley Woolmer, who found him in a great state of agitation in consequence of his writing materials and papers having been taken from him. He said he had a note for him, in which he had stated that there was a great danger in his transition from this world into the presence of the Father, being a hurried, confused, and scrambling departure, instead of that order and quiet being secured which would enable him to realise that solemn composure so desirous of realising.

He then alluded to having his papers taken from him. The papers were immediately restored to him, when he wrote a long letter to Mrs. White, which he entrusted to the care of the Rev. Shirley Woolmer, to be given to her on her return to England.

He desired that the public should be made aware that he recanted all the charges against Earl Dudley, that he did not entertain the slightest animosity against that nobleman, and that the chaplain should write a letter to him asking his forgiveness.

During the last few days, he repeatedly requested that when his manuscripts were published (which will be done by the Rev. ) nothing should be contained therein which might cause the slightest annoyance to his lordship, or bring up again before the public any recollection of the animosity he had. He also recanted the expressed towards him. Charges he had made against society for the responsibility of his acts.

He prayed with the chaplain, who in the course of his prayer said, “Oh Lord, into thy hands we commend the soul of this our brother, for thou hast redeemed him, O Lord, thou God of truth.” During the prayers, then Forwood wept bitterly. At the conclusion before being pinioned and before ascending the scaffold, he said;

“I desire to concentrate the whole power of my soul and spirit into one mighty evolution of rendering myself up to God,” in the words “Thy will and not mine be done.”

After he had finished the letter to Mrs. White, Forwood continued in earnest prayer with the Rev. Mr. Woolmer down to the period appointed for the execution.

Mr F. Scudamore, the undersheriff of the county of Kent, accompanied by some of his officers, arrived at the gaol a few minutes before noon, and they at once proceeded to the cell where the prisoner was confined and announced to him that the fatal moment had arrived After the Stephen Forwood had been pinioned by Calcraft,

who was assisted on this occasion by Smith, who acts as executioner at Stafford and in the midland counties, the prisoner asked permission to say a few words, and he then exclaimed in an audible voice, “ I desire to say in the presence of you who are now assembled, and in the presence of Almighty God, into whose immediate presence I am now about to depart, that I die trusting only to the merits of the God-man Jesus Christ.’ As he was proceeding to the scaffold the prisoner prayed audibly; and just before he was placed upon the drop he shook hands with Major Bannister, and also with the chaplain, and requested the latter as a last favour when he was upon the scaffold, that he would only utter the sentence of prayer which he should dictate to him, which was, “ Lord, into Thy hands we commend the soul of this our brother, for thou hast redeemed him, O Lord, thou God of Truth.” The culprit submitted to the pinioning with the greatest composure and ascended the stairs leading to the scaffold with a firm step.

On reaching the scaffold he glanced upwards towards the beam, and placed himself under the chain. Calcraft then very tediously drew the cap over his head and adjusted the rope around his neck, during which time the culprit remained perfectly calm and unmoved. The Rev. Shirley Woolmer then repeated the words desired by Forwood, when the bolt was immately drawn, and Forwood expired without the slightest struggle or tremor of the frame.

The weather at the time of the execution was most inclement. It was snowing fast and there was a fierce gale of wind blowing. This will probably account for the comparatively small number of persons who were present at the execution, who did not exceed 1,000, there were very few women among the crowd.

A rather curious incident occurred at the moment of the execution. The mournful procession was arranged that it should start from the cell at about three minutes to the hour of twelve, which was the time appointed for the execution, and upon arriving at the foot of the drop it was one minute to twelve by the prison clock. The culprit was then pinioned, but upon the Under Sheriff looking at the clock again, the hand was still at the same spot. At the very instant the snow, which, as above stated, was falling in large flakes, had stopped the minute hand of the clock, and the execution consequently took place before the appointed hour had struck. By a very curious coincidence, the town clock outside the Town Hall, High Street, also stopped at the same time and from the same cause.

As upon former occasions, the scaffold was hung round with black cloth to such a height that when the drop fell only just the top of the culprit’s head was visible to the crowd. ‘The body, after hanging one hour, was cut down and a cast of the head was taken by Dr Donovan, of London.

The body was buried within the walls of the goal, in pursuance of the sentence. Those present to witness the demoralising scene were lectured as usual by noisy “tub-thumping with but little effect.

Rev. Shirley Woolmer, in expressing his opinion of the culprit, after the execution, said he was one of the most genuine and truthful of men and had been so throughout his trial and since. During the last few days of his existence all the self—conceit that had been exhibited by the culprit entirely left him, and he must undoubtedly, under the circumstances, be regarded as a most extraordinary criminal. It appears that the only education he ever received was at a penny-a-week school, and it seems surprising how he should have obtained the acquirements which he undoubtedly possessed. The opinion of everyone who has come in communication with him appears to be that if he had had the benefit of a good education his talents would have been extraordinary. Whether or not his brain was affected to such an extent as to render him an irresponsible agent, is a question that can now never be set to rest but the whole of his conduct, from the committal of the murder of his wife and child at Ramsgate, showed that he was actuated by some extraordinary impulse or delusion, and upon this point there does not appear to be any doubt that he was acting sincerely, and that there was nothing like shamming about his conduct.

Life After

In October 1867, there was a fire at Walter Smallwood White's house at 4 Featherstone Building in Holborn London and stated that he believed the fire started a little before four. unclear the reason why. He was taken in by William Chapman the local Optician, who lived at 19 Featherstone Buildings . He had retired as a schoolmaster by 1881 and moved on to Camberwell Lambeth London. then by 1891, at the age of 84, he was living with the youngest son, he had with his first wife, Joseph Alexander White.

He died on 24th February 1892 at 75 Grandison Road Clapham Common London and is buried at West Brompton Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Greater London

It is unclear what happened to Maria White, did she even know her children were gone?. further investigations around her is needed.

Marias surviving child Elizabeth Annie White, Married at St Pancreas old church in Camden London on 24th June 1882, at age 25. Her husband was William Liddiard, age 22, who became a local Fruit Seller and a Dairy man. They had four children two boys and two girls and she died in Brighton at the age of 74 in 1931.

Sources

1. Enniscorthy News - Saturday 09 April 1864 CHARGE OP ASSAULT AGAINST EARL pg 2

2. Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury - Friday 18 August 1865 THE DOUBLE MURDER pg 3-4

3. Maidstone Telegraph - Saturday 12 August 1865 TRIPLE MURDER IN HOLBORN, AND TWO MORE MURDERS AT RAMSGATE BY THE SAME HAND.pg 3

4. Sheerness Guardian and East Kent Advertiser - Saturday 19 August 1865 The Holborn Inquiry pg 6

5. Berkshire Chronicle - Saturday 02 September 1865 THE TRIPLE MURDER IN HOLBORN pg 6

6. Morning Advertiser - Saturday 12 October 1867 ''Bow Street'' pg 7

7. Maidstone Telegraph - Saturday 13 January 1866 'Execution of the Murderer Southey''

8. Faversham Times and Mercury and North-East Kent Journal - Saturday 19 August 1865 Double Murder at Ramsgate The Inquest pg 4

9. Ancestry

10. Bring your backstory to lifeTM (no date) Ancestry® | Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records. Available at: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/

11. General Register Office (no date) General Register Office - Online Ordering Service - Login. Available at: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/

12. Pictures and historical info from Wikipedia https://www.wikipedia.org/

13. links

14. 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/