A Complicated Kingsdown Murder
Original research Jane Hussey in her family history “The Newmans of Box and Bathford”, July 2024
Original research Jane Hussey in her family history “The Newmans of Box and Bathford”, July 2024
Extract from Goya’s painting “Assault on a Coach” 1787 (courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
On 25 November 1820, an assault was committed at Kingsdown. and brother labourers, William and Gracious Cox, were charged with the murder of Joseph Strong who died a few days later on 17 December 1820. Joseph Strong was born in 1771, aged only 49 when he died and was buried in St Thomas a Becket Church. He first wife appears to have been Jane Jones of Bristol whom he married on 30 March 1789 but she died thereafter. Joseph married again to Martha House in 1812 and they lived near Kingsdown Hill, probably on the Lower Kingsdown Road. At first, the details of the case appeared to be fairly simple, but they gradually get more complex.
Highway Robberies
Reports of the tragedy were set out by a London newspaper as a straightforward highway robbery gone wrong: About half past 9 o’clock on Saturday night (25 November 1820), as Joseph Strong was returning from Bath to his home, under Kingsdown Hill, with a tilted cart (cart with body that can tilt for emptying, usually used for carrying heavy loads).[1] A most inhuman attack was made upon him by some villains at present unknown. The poor man, in company with a servant girl named Hannah Norris, had been to Bath with some clothes which his wife had washed. He was returning during a heavy rain, the girl being nearly asleep in the cart, and Strong walking by the side of the cart, when within a quarter of a mile of their home, a man suddenly jumped into the cart and knocked out the light, saying to the girl, “Damn your eyes. Give me your money. We are come from Berkshire for money, and money we will have!” The girl cried murder; the man then put his hand before her mouth, held a pistol against her breast, and swore he would murder her if she spoke another word. She said she had no money, and begged him to spare her life. He then jumped out of the cart and cried out “Tom, there’s nothing for us here.” The girl alighted and, walking about 20 yards, heard some person groan, and found her master weltering in his blood. She soon procured assistance and, on examination, the poor man’s head was found to be fractured in many places. It appears that the weapons used were stone hammers. Several pieces of bone have been taken out of his skull, and he now lies quite senseless.
The report goes on to say:
“About half an hour before this horrid transaction, Mr Jacob Hayward, farmer of Whitley near Melksham, was knocked off his horse near the same spot, doubtless by the same villains who, not content with robbing him of £52.10s in cash and notes, his pocket book containing a draft for £30, and a silver hunting watch, beat him most unmercifully, leaving him for dead… Hopes however are entertained for his recovery.
Inquest and Charges
The inquest was held on 14 December 1820 before William Clare, coroner. The jurors of good and lawful men comprised James Cottle, William Ayliffe, John Jones, William Hancock, James Eyles, John Humphrys, Robert Newman, William Baker, George Stonall, David Pinchin, Zephaniah Bullock and Ezekiell Wilkins. They were charged with finding out when, where and how, and by what means Joseph Strong had come to his death. The jurors were residents of Box but not particularly local to Kingsdown. They concluded that brothers William and Gracious Cox not having the fear of God before their eyes but being moved and instigated by the Devil committed the crime and did murder against the peace of our said Lord, the King, his Crown and Dignity. In other words, the moral and religious beliefs of the accused were identified but they declared that the weapon was unknown.
The coroner’s inquest gives more information that the deceased was a poor man and that his wife was in the habit of taking in clothes for washing from Bath residents.[2] The servant girl, Ann (or Hannah) Norris, added that: It was dark before we left Bath. A short distance before we came to Kingsdown, we turned from the new road into the old road, which is by the side of the other. The widow Martha Strong claimed that Joseph had told her on his death bed in hospital that William Cox of Atford was the man that did him the injury. She added that she had said If you think you are dying, I hope you are happy. He answered: I am as happy as a prince, thank God for it. At this point Martha fainted and, although she was brought to give evidence three more times, on each occasion, she fainted and would not add another word:[3]
The inquest jury returned a verdict that charges should be brough for Wilful murder against William Cox and Gracious Cox, two brothers who had undergone several examinations, and who are now committed for trial to Devizes Bridewell.[4]
The Widow
Clearly, the murder was tragic and left the widow, Martha Strong, in a dreadful situation. She had been Martha House, a spinster of Bath, when she married Joseph Strong, widower, in 1812. The newspapers took up her plight. The Bath Journal newspaper of 25 December 1820 gave an update: The Murder of Joseph Strong – Late Sergeant in one of his Majesty’s Regiment of Foot, in which he served with satisfaction to his commanding officer, has involved his widow in debt and left her in a state of great distress. The expenses of his illness and funeral have been very great and the writer of the above has known him and his widow for 5 years as honest persons. She can appeal to Mr Wiltshire, the mayor of this city, for the truth of this statement. The smallest donation will be acceptable. [Unsigned] The letter referenced those who had already subscribed to help the unfortunate widow of this loyal serviceman in the wars against Napoleon.
However, all was not quite so straightforward. Reporting on the trial by the Star Newspaper, London, it emerged that Mrs Strong was not all she appeared.[5] It was supposed that grief at the remembrance of her husband’s fate had deprived her of utterance, till it was discovered that she was actually to have been married on that day to another husband and it was with the utmost difficulty that they had procured her to attend the court!
The Trial and Verdict
The trial started at Salisbury Crown Court on 12 March 1821. The witnesses from Box included William Beard Newman, Joseph Bartlett, Ann Norris, Thomas Shell, Martha Strong and Mr Greensmith. All of whom were conveyed to Salisbury in a chaise via Corsham and Devizes on the first day, continuing on the 13th to Salisbury where they stayed at the Spred Eagel. After the trial, they returned to Box taking another two days. Their costs came to £50.17s.3d, of which Wiltshire County paid £36.5s and Box Parish paid the rest.
Joseph Bartlett gave evidence at the trial that he had overtaken William Cox at Batheaston Bridge on a Sunday when Joseph Strong was still alive. He formed the impression that there were grounds for suspicion against Cox from expressions Cox had made.[6] The judge directed that there was no evidence whatever to affect Gracious Cox and directed the jury to acquit him. Gracious Cox was then sworn in and he admitted that he and his brother were in the area but they had no concern in the murder. John Long of Monkton Farleigh then deposed that another man had been apprehended in Bath, on whom the suspicions of guilt were very strong. After a considerable time, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The reliability of the evidence by witnesses was probably behind the acquittals. The claim by the servant that one perpetrator was called Tom did not match other evidence and the details of the death bed declaration seems most unnatural. These inconsistencies seem to be augmented by the clandestine marriage in March 1821 of the widowed Martha to George Bartlett (son of Joseph Bartlett, another witness). Martha was probably herself a victim of circumstances and (if it is the same person) she was recorded as Martha Bartlett of Box dying aged 37 in 1828.
Highway Robberies
Reports of the tragedy were set out by a London newspaper as a straightforward highway robbery gone wrong: About half past 9 o’clock on Saturday night (25 November 1820), as Joseph Strong was returning from Bath to his home, under Kingsdown Hill, with a tilted cart (cart with body that can tilt for emptying, usually used for carrying heavy loads).[1] A most inhuman attack was made upon him by some villains at present unknown. The poor man, in company with a servant girl named Hannah Norris, had been to Bath with some clothes which his wife had washed. He was returning during a heavy rain, the girl being nearly asleep in the cart, and Strong walking by the side of the cart, when within a quarter of a mile of their home, a man suddenly jumped into the cart and knocked out the light, saying to the girl, “Damn your eyes. Give me your money. We are come from Berkshire for money, and money we will have!” The girl cried murder; the man then put his hand before her mouth, held a pistol against her breast, and swore he would murder her if she spoke another word. She said she had no money, and begged him to spare her life. He then jumped out of the cart and cried out “Tom, there’s nothing for us here.” The girl alighted and, walking about 20 yards, heard some person groan, and found her master weltering in his blood. She soon procured assistance and, on examination, the poor man’s head was found to be fractured in many places. It appears that the weapons used were stone hammers. Several pieces of bone have been taken out of his skull, and he now lies quite senseless.
The report goes on to say:
“About half an hour before this horrid transaction, Mr Jacob Hayward, farmer of Whitley near Melksham, was knocked off his horse near the same spot, doubtless by the same villains who, not content with robbing him of £52.10s in cash and notes, his pocket book containing a draft for £30, and a silver hunting watch, beat him most unmercifully, leaving him for dead… Hopes however are entertained for his recovery.
Inquest and Charges
The inquest was held on 14 December 1820 before William Clare, coroner. The jurors of good and lawful men comprised James Cottle, William Ayliffe, John Jones, William Hancock, James Eyles, John Humphrys, Robert Newman, William Baker, George Stonall, David Pinchin, Zephaniah Bullock and Ezekiell Wilkins. They were charged with finding out when, where and how, and by what means Joseph Strong had come to his death. The jurors were residents of Box but not particularly local to Kingsdown. They concluded that brothers William and Gracious Cox not having the fear of God before their eyes but being moved and instigated by the Devil committed the crime and did murder against the peace of our said Lord, the King, his Crown and Dignity. In other words, the moral and religious beliefs of the accused were identified but they declared that the weapon was unknown.
The coroner’s inquest gives more information that the deceased was a poor man and that his wife was in the habit of taking in clothes for washing from Bath residents.[2] The servant girl, Ann (or Hannah) Norris, added that: It was dark before we left Bath. A short distance before we came to Kingsdown, we turned from the new road into the old road, which is by the side of the other. The widow Martha Strong claimed that Joseph had told her on his death bed in hospital that William Cox of Atford was the man that did him the injury. She added that she had said If you think you are dying, I hope you are happy. He answered: I am as happy as a prince, thank God for it. At this point Martha fainted and, although she was brought to give evidence three more times, on each occasion, she fainted and would not add another word:[3]
The inquest jury returned a verdict that charges should be brough for Wilful murder against William Cox and Gracious Cox, two brothers who had undergone several examinations, and who are now committed for trial to Devizes Bridewell.[4]
The Widow
Clearly, the murder was tragic and left the widow, Martha Strong, in a dreadful situation. She had been Martha House, a spinster of Bath, when she married Joseph Strong, widower, in 1812. The newspapers took up her plight. The Bath Journal newspaper of 25 December 1820 gave an update: The Murder of Joseph Strong – Late Sergeant in one of his Majesty’s Regiment of Foot, in which he served with satisfaction to his commanding officer, has involved his widow in debt and left her in a state of great distress. The expenses of his illness and funeral have been very great and the writer of the above has known him and his widow for 5 years as honest persons. She can appeal to Mr Wiltshire, the mayor of this city, for the truth of this statement. The smallest donation will be acceptable. [Unsigned] The letter referenced those who had already subscribed to help the unfortunate widow of this loyal serviceman in the wars against Napoleon.
However, all was not quite so straightforward. Reporting on the trial by the Star Newspaper, London, it emerged that Mrs Strong was not all she appeared.[5] It was supposed that grief at the remembrance of her husband’s fate had deprived her of utterance, till it was discovered that she was actually to have been married on that day to another husband and it was with the utmost difficulty that they had procured her to attend the court!
The Trial and Verdict
The trial started at Salisbury Crown Court on 12 March 1821. The witnesses from Box included William Beard Newman, Joseph Bartlett, Ann Norris, Thomas Shell, Martha Strong and Mr Greensmith. All of whom were conveyed to Salisbury in a chaise via Corsham and Devizes on the first day, continuing on the 13th to Salisbury where they stayed at the Spred Eagel. After the trial, they returned to Box taking another two days. Their costs came to £50.17s.3d, of which Wiltshire County paid £36.5s and Box Parish paid the rest.
Joseph Bartlett gave evidence at the trial that he had overtaken William Cox at Batheaston Bridge on a Sunday when Joseph Strong was still alive. He formed the impression that there were grounds for suspicion against Cox from expressions Cox had made.[6] The judge directed that there was no evidence whatever to affect Gracious Cox and directed the jury to acquit him. Gracious Cox was then sworn in and he admitted that he and his brother were in the area but they had no concern in the murder. John Long of Monkton Farleigh then deposed that another man had been apprehended in Bath, on whom the suspicions of guilt were very strong. After a considerable time, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The reliability of the evidence by witnesses was probably behind the acquittals. The claim by the servant that one perpetrator was called Tom did not match other evidence and the details of the death bed declaration seems most unnatural. These inconsistencies seem to be augmented by the clandestine marriage in March 1821 of the widowed Martha to George Bartlett (son of Joseph Bartlett, another witness). Martha was probably herself a victim of circumstances and (if it is the same person) she was recorded as Martha Bartlett of Box dying aged 37 in 1828.
|
Conclusion
The events in this case were at a time of great social unrest in England. George III had died, succeeded by his son George IV in 1820; a Radical uprising of 60,000 weavers in Scotland was put down by troops, reminding people of the Peterloo massacre the previous year; the Cato Street plot to murder the government was foiled. Opposition to authority in 1821 was demonstrated by support of the estranged Queen Caroline at the coronation; and the death of Napoleon that year reminded people of the Napoleonic Wars. These events were at a time when government relied on spies and the military to suppress unrest, a decade before the Great Reform Act gave some people a peaceful way of protesting, and nearly 20 years before policing was extended from the parish to county authorities. Against this political unrest, the inquest jury in this case claimed no knowledge of the accused but they were able to assert they were un-Godly, probably more to find someone to blame who could be punished. It is also notable that very many Tory newspapers carried this story using it to condemn local disorder. These included The Constitution, St James Chronicle, The Brunswick or True Blue, The Champion of London and The Statesman. And, of course, like us, readers of newspapers enjoyed stories of villainous deeds and provincial papers added to the unrest by repeating salacious details from far-away places. Fortunately, justice seems to have prevailed in this case. |
The Prince Regent, later George IV (courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
|
References
[1] The Commercial Chronicle, London, 2 December 1820
[2] The Constitution, London, 8 April 1821
[3] The Star, London, 9 April 1821
[4] The Bath Journal, 18 December 1820
[5] The Star, London, 9 April 1821
[6] The Constitution, London, 8 April 1821
[1] The Commercial Chronicle, London, 2 December 1820
[2] The Constitution, London, 8 April 1821
[3] The Star, London, 9 April 1821
[4] The Bath Journal, 18 December 1820
[5] The Star, London, 9 April 1821
[6] The Constitution, London, 8 April 1821