Saturday 28^th February 1852

                                                                   FRIDAY

                                 TRIAL OF ELIZABETH PINCKARD

                                   On the charge of murdering her mother-in-law 

Intense interest and anxiety were excited in this town and neighbourhood by this approaching trial, and the doors of the court were besieged long before the hour appointed for it's commencement. It was fixed for ten o'clock, but the proceedings had begun some minutes earlier. Mr. Miller appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Sergeant Humfrey (with whom were Mr. Hayes and Mr. Barton) rose to open the case for the prosecution. He began by alluding to the great interest which the case had excited in the county and implored the jury to remove from their minds every statement that might have reached them, and to confine themselves solely to the evidence which would be laid before them. It was not less their imperative duty to provide for the safety, and protect the interests of society, than to take care that the life of an individual standing in the position of the prisoner was not unjustly taken. The learned council described the relationship subsisting between the prisoner and the deceased, and said it was his painful duty to suggest a probable motive for the murder. The prisoner and her husband were in embarrassed circumstances - the landlord had threatened to distrain on them for rent, and at the death of her mother - in - law the sum of £1,000 would come to the prisoner's husband. He went on to detail the departure of the husband of the prisoner with his father, the deceased's husband, for Daventry fair - the prisoner's going to and returning from the deceased's house - the angry words and cry of murder heard from the cottage - the prisoner's

coming to the door, and being seen and spoken to whilst there - her return to her own house, and her subsequent proceedings: and having given an outline of all the events connected with the case, went on to show the improbability of death having been self-inflicted. The poor woman was actually preparing her husband's dinner on the morning of her death, a circumstance very inconsistent with an intention to destroy herself; and dwelt on the bruises and cries of murder as further proofs of improbability. It was difficult to dive into motives, but there was one to which he had already referred, and which he must be forgiven for recurring to - it was the £1,000, which had now been received by the prisoner's husband from the trustees. In conclusion, he called upon them in the name of the safety of society, to do justice fearlessly and conscientiously, and in accordance with the evidence he should lay before them.

Rd. Pinckard was residing near the road from Daventry to Buckby. His son lived about three-quarters of a mile from him. Left home on the 3^rd October, about nine in the morning to go to Daventry fair with a horse. Had been told before his return that his wife was dead, and could not tell what time he got home. His wife was in good health, and never in better spirits than when he left her in the morning. After the body had been taken up-stairs observed some marks of blood. Never saw in his house any tape like that on the table of the Court. He and his wife lived on the interest of near £1,000.

 Cross-examined by Mr. Miller, for the prisoner, - His son's interest in the money was mortgaged. His wife had been ill, but was always in good spirits. She had been to the hospital. Is told that his wife's clothes were buried with her. She was buried in her grave clothes, but her own clothes were also put into the coffin.  By Mr. Humfrey, - His son had insured his life for £300, and that he called next door to mortgaging it. William Gates is deputy-register to the Archdeaconry Court of Northampton. He produces the will of Francis Mutton. - Gibbins, an old deaf man is attesting witness to the will of Francis Mutton. He saw the old man execute it.  The will of Francis Mutton was then read, in which was found the bequest of £1,000 to the wife of Pinckard.

 Thomas Wathorne, the landlord of the prisoner's husband, stated that they were in arrears of rent. He told the prisoner they ought to have prepared the rent: he could not think of waiting, neither would he. He told them it would take considerable time to thrash their corn; they had better apply to a friend for the money, which could be re-paid at the death of old Mrs. Pinckard.

 Edward Major lives at Norton. Works with the prisoner's husband. Remembers going to Daventry fair with him at nine o'clock in the morning. Knows old Mr. Pinckard, and returning from the fair went into the house. This was about a quarter to 12. He saw Mrs. Pinckard sitting in a corner. There was some tape about her neck; asked her for a drop of water. She did not speak. Was frightened, and ran out of the house. Ran to the prisoner's house. Welton bell rings at 12, and when he got home Welton bell was ringing. Next morning heard of the death, and told William Child's wife what he had seen.

 Ann Cross is a single woman. She lived servant with John Mutton Pinckard and the prisoner in October last, and is still in their service. Her master went to Daventry fair on October 3d. Her mistress sent her to Welton for some bread about ten o'clock. Welton is about a mile and a half off. Left only the prisoner in the house. She returned at ten minutes to twelve. Was sweeping the kitchen, but her mistress told her to leave off and go. Her mistress had on at that time a dark coloured lilac dress. It was torn at the gathers, and hung down. Said, You've torn your gown out of the gathers. She said she had torn it with the key of the dairy door. Before that she said she had been a blackberrying, and all she got she'd eaten. She went to the door and looked out more than once. After dinner she changed her dress and was mending the one she had taken off. She told witness she might go to the fair, but she did not go. In the course of the day Letts came, and said your mother-in-law's dead. She's hung herself. Went to the cottage, and remained all night. Returned to Thrupp next morning and prisoner inquired who was at the cottage. She said she had washed her gown twice, and told witness to turn it about and get it dry. Witness found that one of her own gowns had been put into the washing tub. She had never put one of her gowns into soak before. Found the lilac dress on the hedge. She came back at twelve o'clock at night, and asked if the dress was dry. The dress was afterwards found on the post of witness's bed. On the Sunday witness observed the deceased must have been hit, the blow being on the right side of the head. Prisoner said the mallet was a likely thing to do it. This mallet was in constant use with the churn. A week before she saw a quantity of tape in a drawer. Deceased was at Thrupp Ground (prisoner's house) a few days previous.

 Cross-examined by Mr. Miller, - Her mistress was making dumplings when she left home that time. Her mistress's gown was a soiled one. So was her own. It was not washed. It was only put into soak. After her mistress had said " The mallet was a likely thing to do it 2 she went and fetched it.

 Thomas Hadland is a labourer. Worked for prisoner's husband in October last. Saw the prisoner leave the house on October 3^rd, just before the house clock struck ten. She went straight up the field leading to Daventry, in the direction of her father-in-law's house. She had on a light dress, and a shawl on her left arm. She returned at a quarter to twelve.

 By the Court, - Witness was just opposite the door.

By Mr. Humfrey, - She had an apron on when she went, but he saw neither apron nor shawl when she returned. Saw that her gown was torn right down and all round from the gathers. The boy came back at twelve. Witness heard from Letts of her death at six o'clock, and was at this time talking with the prisoner. He said to her "Come mistress, it's the master's mother, you should go up and see to the woman." She staggered back into a chair, and crying "Oh! Oh!" she caught hold of his hand and said, " God bless you don't leave me all this night." Much ado had he to get her up to deceased's cottage.

 Letts and Liddington were at the cottage, and said, loud enough for the prisoner to hear, " It was a tall, stout, big woman, just like Mrs. Pinckard." They added, " She came to the door and looked sideways"

 John Letts is a labourer, remembers the 3d of last October. Was working on the Buckby road near the deceased's cottage. Saw a woman go into it between a quarter and half past ten. She came out about a quarter to eleven, and went the way she came - the Buckby direction. About a quarter to eleven he saw the woman standing at the door, and heard her say, "it does not matter a damn about you." She left it about half-past eleven. About six he saw deceased sitting on the floor, her arms stretched out, her hands open, her feet quite level, and her clothes undisturbed. Next day prisoner asked him what sort of a woman it was, and he told her she was of her own stature.

 By the Court, - The tone in which the words were uttered were those of quarrelling. There was another loud voice in the cottage, which, he had no doubt was that of the deceased. He knew her well.

 John Liddington worked that morning with Letts on the road. Before Letts left for dinner - about half-past eleven - saw a woman going from old Pinckard's towards Buckby; she had a light-coloured dress on, and was going at a moderate pace. Saw William Reynolds, William Cole, and one little boy who came from East Haddon. That night when prisoner came to the cottage Letts said he had seen a woman that morning go into the cottage; and witness said he had seen one leave about half-past eleven.

 William Reynolds, a police constable, went to Daventry fair on the 3^rd October. Passed old Mr. Pinckard's cottage about half past eleven, and saw the prisoner standing at the door. Knew her perfectly well, and is quite sure that she was the person standing at the door.

 William Cole lives at East Haddon. Went to Daventry fair - passed the cottage about a quarter to eleven - saw a woman there - after he had passed the cottage she came to the door and looked both ways and went in again. When he came back between three and four the cottage door was open. Believes the prisoner to be the woman he saw at the window and afterwards at the door.

 William Hinckley, a wheelwright, at Long Buckby, passed the cottage on the 3^rd October between half-past ten and eleven- saw the prisoner against at the door- it was on hr right hand nearly wide open. Was about a yard and a half from her- prisoner looked at him and he at her.

 By the Court, - Was taken to the jail to see her.

 Frederick Barlow, labourer, at Thrupp, was returning on the 3d October from Thrupp. Saw the prisoner at the door- she said, " How is it you have not sold your horse, my lad?" He said he had not been to the fair. She had on a lilac dress between a light and a dark. This was about half-past eleven o'clock.

Cross-examined by Mr. Miller, - Had told the old man that he thought it was his wife he had been talking to. The old man asked what dress she had on, and said his woman wore no such dress.

 Pinckard re-called, - His wife was 53. Prisoner may be about 52.

 By Mr. Humfrey, - Is quite sure that it was the prisoner with whom he talked.

 Thomas Flowers, a labourer, went to Daventry and thence to Buckby at a quarter past eleven. Heard a groaning when he got to the house- it ceased- and as he went on recommenced- with a scuffling noise. It appeared to him as if there were more than two in the house.

 By the Court, - The scuffling was as if some one were pulled along the floor.

 Martha Marks lives at Welton, was going to the fair, and was on the road leading from Norton to Daventry. Heard cries of murder a great number of times. They seemed to come from the cottage. There are no other houses. She might be 200 yards from it. She was near a gate on the right.

 Emma Marks was with last witness, and gave precisely same testimony.

 Caroline Treadgold went from Daventry to Norton on Daventry fair day. Met the last two witnesses and heard the cries of murder. It was from a quarter to half-past eleven o'clock.

 Thomas Bird lives at Daventry. On the 3d of October was passing the cottage of Mr. Pinckard. It was half-past five. Rents a field adjoining the cottage. The door was open and witness went in. Mrs. Pinckard was sitting in one corner of the room dead, stiff, and cold. There was a corner cupboard against her left-hand side. There was tape round her neck fastened to a hook in the cupboard on her left side. Does not think the tight enough to strangle her. Broke it off and the body remained unaltered in position. Her hands were one on each side of her straight out. Her head hung towards the right side. Her legs were as straight as they possibly could be. Witness called in Letts and Liddington. There was a sort of bruise over the right side. Nothing was done that could have occasioned bruises to the body between the discovery and the arrival of Mr. Sharman.

 Edward Osborne, the Daventry constable, apprehended the prisoner on the Monday after the death on the Buckby Road. He said, " no doubt somebody had done the deed that had an interest in it." She said, " I can assure you, Sir, I did not want to take Mrs. Pinckard's life, or anybody else's for the sake of money. I had plenty of money at home"

 He found the lilac gown in the servant's room; some tape in a drawer, a mallet, and an apron on which there were several spots of blood. She said she had been out that day by her husband's direction to the nine acre-acre field and had gathered blackberries, which she had eaten."

Cross-examined by Mr. Miller. - Saw a spot or two of blood on her stockings.

 Mr. Sharman, surgeon, at Daventry, went to the cottage of the deceased about six in the evening. The body was lying on the right side, the head resting on a pillow. One end of the tape was still on the hook. There was a bruise on the right eye. The face was swollen and discoloured. The tape was round the throat. At the post mortem examination found under the skin of the top-part of the head there were three or four slight vessels ruptured, which a light blow might produce. The blow over the right eye was severe. The wound had gone down to the bone. Should suppose it was inflicted with a blunt instrument. On the trachea there was a rupture, on the right side, up and down. It was broken through. Had death been produced by mere strangulation round the trachea these appearances might be produced, but he never saw an instance. If the force were greater than the resistance in front, rupture might be produced. Crossways it would be cut, broken, if wounded, up and down. The skin was broken on the right elbow. The clothes were decently disposed, and the hands flat. Supposing her to be found sitting, her legs straight out, and her arms also, her clothes as described. Supposing she had destroyed herself there was nothing to account for the wound in the eye or the head. It is possible that the mallet might have inflicted the wound on the head; probable that it would inflict the wound on the eye. There was no appearance of blood having passed from any of the wounds. Saw spots of blood, one on the wall, directly above her head, supposing her to be sitting there. Had she destroyed herself it was impossible that that blood could have got there. Should suppose the blood had been wiped from the eye. By his Lordship. - The mark was about four feet from the ground. It was a smear. The smear might have been made by violently driving the head against the wall. By Mr. Humfrey, - The hook was about a foot lower, and the smear might have occasioned by removing the body. There were wounds on the prisoner's finger, and if bleeding might occasion the smear on the wall. Examined the finger a few days after the prisoner was sent to prison; the wound appeared four or five days old. Could not account for the other spots, seven or eight feet from the body, as coming from the body; another spot was eight or nine feet further away and there was nothing to account for its being there. There might be a spoonful of blood altogether; presumes it came from the eye, the blow on which might have caused the eye to bleed. Had strangulation taken place in another part of the room it might have produced blood from the eye. The rupture of the trachea from the top to the bottom might have produced blood. On Sunday the 5^th went to the prisoner's house and told her that there were reports in circulation - had she heard them? She said, No. He said it was considered that her mother was murdered. She said she was just of that opinion herself. He said the next question was, who did it? She said, " All I can say is that I hope whoever did it may be detected and punished." She said she had no suspicion of anybody; the deceased was at enmity with nobody. She was one you might live and die with and never have an angry word. He alluded to some one having been seen to go to and from the cottage and that it was not doubted that person had gone there to commit the deed. She said all this she and her husband had talked over, and could make nothing of it. She said she thought whoever did it had beaten her very much. In reply to a question from witness, she said she had not seen her mother-in-law since the previous Sunday.

By the Court, - The wound on the head might have been produced immediately after death. Had the blow been given before strangulation was effected, the appearance of the eye would have been what it was.

 By Mr. Miller, - Supposing a blow to cause insensibility before strangulation, and had stopped the action of the lungs before that of the heart ceased, there would be the amount of congestion which he found.

 By Mr. Humfrey, - Considers that all he saw - the state of the body - the spots of blood - and every circumstance was inconsistent with the possibility of the deceased having destroyed herself.      

 By Mr. Mash, - Thinks it impossible deceased can have made the mark above the hook. Were this mark, and the blood at the distance from the body away, it is possible deceased may have destroyed herself. It is also possible that the blood might be occasioned by the hand of a person removing the body. She was twice an in-patient at the hospital. Her skull was unusually thick; the dura-mater was very adherent. This generally arises from disease, and with persons hypochondriacally disposed. In his opinion, under all the circumstances (supposing the marks of blood to be accounted for) she did commit suicide.

 By Mr. Humfrey, - How could she be in perfectly quiet position, her clothes arranged, her hands open on her knees. How, if the blow on the eye were occasioned by herself, could she be in this state?

 Mr. Mash, - It might be the sudden twist round of the head, and then she immediately expired.

 By the Court, - The effort must be violent and convulsive. Could her legs and hands be as they were?

 Mr. Mash, - It might be so, my lord.

 Mr. Humfrey repeated the question.

 Mr. Mash, - Suicides are found in all positions.

 Mr. Humfrey asked whether it were possible that, if the blow had been given before strangulation ensued, the body could be in the state in which it was?

 Mr. Mash, - I think it is not possible.

 The question being again put both by the Court and Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Mash said, he could not pretend to say.

 Mr. Humfrey having once more put the question in the same terms, Mr. Mash said it was possible. It might not have been a violent blow.

 Mr. Humfrey, - Did it not go to the wound?

 Mr. Mash, - Did not know.

 His Lordship severely rebuked Mr. Mash. It astonished him to hear such evidence from a man connected with an important establishment.

 In answer to Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Mash did not consider a blow on the eye, which goes to the bone, a very severe wound. Other people consider it so. But he does not. At length Mr. Mash admitted that such a blow was inconsistent with the position in which the body was found.

 His Lordship, - Forgive me for saying I do not think you have sufficiently considered the matter.

 Mr. Humfrey, I will not ask him any more questions. I do not think it worth while.

 By Mr. Humfrey, - Dr. Alfred Taylor, lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence and Chemistry at Guy's Hospital. Has thought and written on the subject of death by strangulation. Assuming the body to be in the position related it is in my judgement utterly impossible that she should have destroyed herself. In public executions never found an injury to the trachea. Never heard of it. Never knew of a longitudinal rupture. A ligature put round the neck, and a stick introduced acting as a lever, might greatly lacerate the trachea. Never heard or read of an up and down rupture of the trachea. The wound over the eye and that on her head, taking into consideration her position after, were inconsistent with self-destruction. The wounds had not been produced, certainly, by any struggle before strangulation. Never knew any instance of limits being as these were after the agonies of strangulation; they might be so arranged immediately after death. His idea was that it was perfectly impossible that fracture of the trachea could be occasioned by a ligature so placed. If death had been occasioned by it, no bleeding could have taken place afterwards. It had been found quite blood. Had magnified the spots by a microscope of 900 power, and by chemical test found that the spots were blood. The blood on the tape was coagulated. It had come from a person either living or recently dead. There was one spot of blood, also tested, on the shawl.

 This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Miller then addressed the jury for the prisoner at great length.

 His Lordship summed up with great care and lucidity, and concluded his charge at about ten minutes past seven o'clock.

 The prisoner having sat with her back to the reporters' seat throughout the day, we had no opportunity of observing her demeanour, but during the consultation of the jury she seemed to lean forward anxiously towards their box; when, after a quarter of an hour's consultation, they returned a verdict of GUILTY, she remained as unmoved as she had been throughout the day, apparently without a tremor, to receive her sentence.

 His Lordship put on the black cap, and in tones which thrilled every heart in Court, he said, " Elizabeth Pinckard, after a long and painful investigation, to which all parties have devoted themselves with exemplary attention, a jury of your country have been compelled to perform the painful duty of pronouncing you guilty of murder- of murder which at all times black and dreadful-becomes in your case doubly black and dreadful. You have hurried, without a moment's warning out of the world a poor creature with whom, according to your own account, you might have lived and died without a word. This at least you will have-which you did not give your victim-time to repent and to atone as far as possible by repentance, for your horrible crime. His lordship then sentenced the prisoner in the usual terms. She was then removed from the bar apparently in a state of stupor.      

The Northampton Herald, 6^th March 1852 

The Daventry Murder. - The day, we understand, for the execution of the wretched criminal Elizabeth Pinckard, has not yet been fixed. But whenever the awful ceremony takes place, we hope, with a right minded correspondent for whose letter we have not room, that our population, if led to witness it, will observe far greater propriety of conduct than has been usual on such occasions. 

The Northampton Mercury, Saturday, March 6, 1852 

THE DAVENTRY MURDER. - The precise day on which the unhappy woman Elizabeth Pinckard is to suffer the awful penalty of her crime has not transpired. Strenuous efforts indeed are being made to prevent the sentence from being carried into effect. Some enquiries have been made which have led to the hope that it will be possible to show that, assuming old Mrs. Pinckard to have met her death at the hands of her daughter in law, the offence was the lesser one of manslaughter. Hitherto the prisoner has made no confession; but her demeanour though evincing considerable firmness, is generally not unbecoming her awful situation. She pays apparently sincere and earnest attention to the religious exhortations of the worthy chaplain, and seems desirous of preparing herself for the solemn change to which in all human probability she will shortly be summoned. She evades however, an allusion to the question of her guilt or innocence, and turns aside any remark which may seem to have reference to it , by speaking directly of some indifferent matter - of the hymn she last  sung, or of such a passage in scripture. Her husband has received the money for which it is presumed the dreadful deed was committed which has doomed his wife to an ignominious death. How little likely it is to be of any use to him may be inferred from the statement in an advertisement in this days paper, that his father being thus deprived of his only means of existence, he refuses to contribute in any way towards the maintenance of the old man. Executions in this county have happily been of rare occurrence of late years. The last took place eighteen years ago, when a man named Thomas Gee suffered for having set fire to a stack of wheat at Guilsborough. The hangman, unskilled in his horrid calling, failed either in the proper or secure adjustment of the rope, and the sufferings of the poor wretch were protracted for a term of nearly 20 minutes. On that occasion, too, the disgusting practice was allowed of rubbing with the dead man's hand, under the absurd notion that it would reduce enlargement of the neck. A very much longer time has elapsed since the extreme penalty was enforced upon a female. It is thirty-one years this March since Mary Clarke was executed, with her paramour, Philip Haynes, for the wilful murder of John Clarke, the husband of the female prisoner. The time, we trust, is not very remote when those dreadful and brutalising spectacles will cease altogether.     

This appeared in The Northampton Mercury, 6th March 1852

                       Subscription for Richard Pinckard

               A Subscription is earnestly solicited for the above named Richard Pinckard (the husband

               of Elizabeth Pinckard, who was cruelly murdered by her Daughter in law, now under sentence of

               death at Northampton).By the death of his wife, who was entitled to the dividends upon £1,000

               for her life, Richard Pinckard has become entirely destitute; his son, who has received  

               the £1,000 refuses to assist his father or do anything for him.

               From his age and constitutional weakness he is unable to maintain himself by manual labour,

               and without the assistance of the charitable he  must go to the workhouse.

               Subscriptions will be kindly received at any of the  banks in the county; and the money duly and carefully

               appropriated. The following subscriptions have already   been received;

                  Sir Charles Knightley, Bart., MP.       £5  0s  0d

                  R.T. Clarke, Esq.    .   .     .        £1  0s  0d 

                  Mr. Burton      .    .   .     .        £3  0s  0d

                  Mr. Joseph Bliss     .   .     .        £2  0s  0d

Letter to the Northampton Mercury 13^th March 1852

 To the Editor of The Northampton Mercury.

                                                 Northampton, 9^th March, 1852.

Sir,- In your last paper you appear to countenance an attempt which has been made by a few persons to make out that the un-

happy convict, Elizabeth Pinckard, had some claims to, mercy on the ground that her crime might be reduced to the smaller

offence of manslaughter. Now you will permit me to say that I think it argues in those who have thus expressed themselves

the possession of more sensibility than sense. Whatever my own feelings, as to the expediency of abolishing, or at any rate con-

siderably modifying, capital punishment may be, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that this attempt is extremely in-

judicious. It appears to me a course obviously tending to weaken our respect for laws and the administration of

justice, and in a point of all others the most important. And here, I would observe, I by no means intend to decry the con-

stitutional method of obtaining a repeal or alteration of our laws,but only to protest against the attempt to tamper with the execu-

tion of the law of the land as it exists.  Kindness in a humane person is a strong and prevailing senti-

ment, but not so strong as the feeling, instinct it has been called, of self-preservation existing in the breasts of all. If the un-

happy convict failed in her extremity to allege a quarrel between herself and mother-in-law as having led to the blow or action

which caused death on her first apprehension or subsequent committal and trial, are we to suggest this ground of defence

now? When she has been defended by two able and intelligent solicitors, two acute and practised counsel; when she has been

tried by a judge and jury of her countrymen, and found guilty of murder after a most lengthened and laborious investigation;

and when the defence then set up was that the deceased com-mitted self-destruction, it really does seem going to far now to

suggest that manslaughter was the extent of the crime. I give you, and those thinking with you, all credit for your well meaning

and humanity, but I do insist that the having set up the defence of suicide on the part of the deceased at the trial entirely pre-

cludes any shifting of ground now, even although, after the failure of the one, this suggestion may at last appear the more

plausible.

                                 I am, Sir,

                                            Your obedient servant.

                                                                                  LEGALIS.      

Letters to the Northampton Herald 20^th March 1852 

                                  ELIZABETH PINCKARD'S CONFESSION 

                         TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHAMPTON HERALD

 Sir, - How is it that the fact of a confession having been made should have been communicated by the London Reporters, and yet withheld from the anxious town was I believe I may say , so late as Thursday night? If such a handbill had been put forth on the matter, followed up by such a petition, surely the feelings of the inhabitants here ought to have been relieved regarding the confession without a moment's delay. Indeed it ought to have been communicated, if possible, before the execution, as helping to satisfy doubting minds regarding the justice of the sentence.

                              I am, Sir, obediently Yours

                                                                                          CIVIS

                                 TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHAMPTON HERALD

 Sir, - The confession of the poor convict shows how improper it was to suggest a falsehood in her favour. One cannot but be glad, for the sake of the poor creature herself, as well as for the jurymen, that she was not induced to act upon the cunning suggestion, by insisting upon the untruth attempted to be placed in her mouth.

                                                                                           CANDIDUS    

Letters to the Northampton Mercury 20th March 1852

"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT"

To the Editor of The Northampton Mercury

Sir, - Will you allow me, through your journal, to offer a few remarks in reply to your correspondent of last week on this subject. Your correspondent  " Ø " asks, " Is it justifiable? Is it moral? Is it even expedient?" If the following question can be answered in the affirmative, which I believe, it will settle lesser queries. Is capital punishment sanctioned by Divine authority? In order to prove this, I shall refer your correspondent to the first statute enacted after the flood concerning murder, Gen. 9, 6, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man."

I am aware of the glosses that are put upon this text, by which your correspondent " Ø, " may be guided, and the many he refers to, but still I must believe that there are many who like, myself, take a plain, common sense view of these words according to their reading in our language - and, that these are, in comparison with those who wish to see capital punishment entirely abolished, an overwhelming majority. I will add, for the present, one more proof of the Divine sanction to capital punishment from the law of Moses. The words " he shall surely be put to death" are of such frequent occurence in that law with regard to the murderer, that it would be a work of supererogation on my part to enumerate them; but I would request your correspondent, " Ø, " and every candid minded reader of that law, to particularly notice the 35^th chap. Of Numbers, and especially those emphatic words of verses 31and 33. "Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." .   .   .       " So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood, it defieth the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Instead, thereof, of those who are participators in the passing of sentence being equally guilty with the murderer, as your correspondent asserts, they are performing a duty incumbent on them of cleansing the land from pollution in the sight of the Almighty. Does your correspondent think the age, in which Noah lived after the flood, a barbarous age; or the state of Society which the Most High organized in Palestine under the Mosaic economy, nomadic? Or, more so the present?

Apologizing for thus troubling you,

                                      I subscribe myself, Yours very respectfully,

                                                                                                                         SAML SHEPPARD

Duncott, March 11, 1852

This report appeared in The Northampton Herald 20th March 1852

                      The Daventry Murder

      On Tuesday morning last at eight o'clock Elizabeth Pinckard was executed on the drop at the back of the Gaol, for the murder

      of her mother in law, Elizabeth Pinckard. An impression had got abroad that the execution would take place on the previous

      Friday, and thousands of persons flocked into the town from the adjacent country. The town was in a state of excitement for the

      whole day and scenes of drunkenness and riot were frequent.  On Tuesday there was a large crowd, composed almost entirely of

      our town population, and on no public occasion has our populace behaved with more propriety. To say that there were no unseemly

      jests-that here and there an ignorant or a brutalised specimen of humanity was not to be seen, would be wrong. But a general

      feeling of awe pervaded the assembly and scores of persons were affected even to tears. As to the execution itself, the

      arrangements of the authorities were perfect. All necessary preparations were made in the prison, and everything on the drop      

      being in readiness, not more than two or three elapsed from the appearance of the criminal before the sentence was completed,

      and  the officials retired from the drop. Shortly after the execution the crowd began to disperse and in a few minutes after

      the removal of the body, the dispersion was complete, and the town resumed it's ordinary appearance. We have been informed,

      on authority that the wretched woman, who retained her self-possession to the last confessed her guilt and acknowledged

      the justice of her sentence.  We do not know when the confession was made, and were only Officially apprised of the fact late on

      Thursday evening. If made Early enough to have been announced in last week's papers, we Cannot but think an error was committed

      in withholding information so calculated to relieve a vast amount of very natural anxiety.

Northampton Herald 27^th March 1852     

                                                   ELIZABETH PINCKARD

                                 TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHAMPTON HERALD 

Sir, - Your remarks about the cruelty of exciting hopes in the poor condemned convict's mind were perfectly just. You could only have strengthened them by observing that the petitioners had gone the extreme length of suggesting a defence that of homicide in passion , which neither prisoner nor counsel had dared to put forward. How the petitioners could have thought of pretending, or could have believed, that there was no motive for the deed, when nearly a thousand pounds was to be instantly obtained by it, is to me inconceivable. But there is still one more melancholy reflection. Had a petition of a judicious and proper kind been framed and forwarded to Government, there might have been a chance of success, however slight, in obtaining a commutation of punishment, whilst with such a petition preceded by such a handbill, addressed to boys and girls above 16 (!), no Minister of the Crown could possibly have complied, unless prepared to abolish at once, and by his own authority, the punishment of death in every case.

                                                                             I am, Sir, your humble servant,

                                                                                                                                                               MISBRICORDIA   

This is the confession of Elizabeth Pinckard as appeared in The Northampton Mercury 27th March 1852

 CONFESSION OF ELIZABETH PINCKARD

[The following appeared in a second edition of our paper of Saturday last.]

At a meeting of the Visiting Justices this day, the following details of the confession were laid before them by the Chaplain, the Rev. Thos. Hutton.

The following are the particulars, as stated by the unfortunate woman Elizabeth Pinckard, in her confession with reference to her acts at the house of her mother- in-law on the 3rd of October, last year:-

I went to the cottage on purpose to do it. I took the tape out of her bag, which was open on the table, when she was fumbling among the flower-pots in the window. I made a slip-knot with the tape doubled, put it over her head, and drew it quite tight. She shook her headseveral times from side to side, and then sliddered down in the corner. I afterwards fastened the tape to the hook, and left her. I did nothing to her dress nor her hands, but as she sliddered down, so I left her, I did not snatch the tape, but drew it tight, and held it firmly. She shook her head from side to side a good deal, and perhaps she then gave herself the blow on the eye against the edge of the wall. I do not know that there was any blood from the wound. I did not see any. She further stated-My husband is as innocent of this matter as a child unborn, and I trust to God that his character will never be blasted on account of my crime.

(signed)

THOS.HUTTON, Chaplain

________________________________

Events following the execution of Elizabeth Pinckard

Elizabeth Pinckard, Richard's wife was buried on the 9^th October 1851 at Cold Higham in Northamptonshire.

After her execution Elizabeth Pinckard was buried in the graveyard at the County gaol and then later  her body along with six other executed criminals was exhumed and then buried at the Towcester Rd cemetery in Northampton in an unmarked grave.

 John Mutton Pinckard remarried to a lady called Amelia Brinsley, They married in Clerkenwell in London on 27^th September 1852 reference, GRO ref. 1 b 661.John Mutton Pinckard is recorded as being 28, a bachelor and a farmer, his father is Richard Pinckard, a farmer. Amelia is recorded as being a spinster aged 28, her father is recorded as being George Brinsley, a solicitor.  I don’t know what happened to Amelia, but by 3rd February 1853 John  Pinckard, Mary Pinckard and Richard Pinckard arrived in America on the ship Liverpool. Richard soon came back to England. By 1861 John Mutton Pinckard, his wife Mary Anne and their four sons were living at 5 James End in Northampton.

They had lived in Hudson City, New York and had three sons there, John Mutton, Samuel Alexander and William H. Their fourth son, Joseph Thomas, was born in Northampton as he was 1 day old on the 1861 census..

 In 1864 they were living at Woolmonger Street in Northampton where William died 7^th July and was buried 10^th July at St Katherine's church, he was 6 years old.

By 1880 the family had moved to Canada

 John Mutton Pinckard died 30^th September 1895 in Muskoka, Ontario, Canada

John and Mary Anne’s descendants live in America

Richard Pinckard went to live in Poplar in London and died there in 1855

 This settlement examination was very kindly sent to me by Mary Taylor  

Settlement Examination

Richard Pinckard[BT1]        Cold Higham    Laborer            27 Oct 1853

I am now about 55 years of age. I don’t know where I was born nor where my parents belonged to at that time. Afterwards my Father was a Butcher and gained a Settlement at Duston by renting a Farm. I went when a Child to reside with my Uncle Samuel Pinckard at Grimscote. I never gained a Settlement in my own right up to the time of my marriage. I was lawfully married about 31 years ago in Cold Higham Parish Church to Elizabeth my late Wife. Her maiden name was Mutton. I have only one Child, John Mutton Pinckard, who is now in America. I was removed soon after my marriage from Cold Higham to Duston which Orders were unappealed against. My Uncle Francis Mutton about 25 years ago left a House and premises at Grimscote to my Wife and her Mother Sarah Mutton jointly, the Survivor to take all. It was sold during their joint lives. About 15 years ago I took the Red Lion Publichouse and land, 6 acres, at Bengal, Greens Norton. I occupied it for 3 years and £30 per ann, paid all Rent and Rates during that period. From there I went to live again at Grimscote up to Three years last Christmas when I took a Farm at Parish of Norton near Daventry for myself and son at £200 per year of Mr Reeve out going Tenant. Mr Waffin of Bugbrook was the owner. He affd accepted me as Tenant. Went soon after Christmas to reside on Farm with my Son and remained there permanently till about [Hay] time following when my Son and his wife behaved so bad that I was obliged to leave and went to reside at Daventry. I afterwards last Michs went to live again with him. I considered myself as joint Occupier with him for the time for 1 ½ year. His name was in Rate Book – my son paid the Rent and Rates. I then went to live at Tiffield with my Brother. I have done no other act to gain a Settlement. I am now in Workhouse and leaving this morning. I have no rec’ts for rent. My Son had them. I don’t know whether my Name was in Rate Book or not. I went to America with my Son, but he turned me up there and I came home some few Weeks since. 

This is a very doubtful Case. If removal [    ] nec’y, I advise a removal to Duston