Mary Ansell in the dock. (Author’s collection)
Caroline Ansell was admitted to Leavesden Asylum in Hertfordshire in October 1894 and was destined to remain there for the rest of her life. She continued to have some contact with her parents and three younger sisters, but on 24 February 1899 received a distressing letter informing her that both her parents had died. It had been supposedly sent by a cousin, Harriet Parish. No attempt was made to contact the family on Caroline’s behalf and the next contact she had with them was the arrival of a parcel on 9 March. It contained a cake which she shared with several other patients. Caroline ate almost half and was taken ill. Her condition worsened and she died on the evening of 14 March.
The asylum doctor immediately suspected the cake and asked for permission to perform an autopsy. In reply, Caroline’s mother, Mrs Sarah Ansell, sent a letter of refusal. This was overruled by the Watford coroner and the cause of death was attributed to phosphorus poisoning.
Evidence of the guilt of Mary Ann, Caroline’s sister, came from multiple sources: she was found to have written both letters sent to he prison, had bought phosphorus poison on several occasions, and she had insured her sister’s life for the sum of £11 5s, a policy that would pay out if death occurred of natural causes after 6 March 1899.
Mary Ansell was found guilty and sentenced to hang; this prompted a fierce campaign arguing for a reprieve on the grounds of her ‘feeble-mindedness’. It was argued that there was insanity in the family. The case was raised both in Parliament, where a petition was signed by over 100 MPs, and with Queen Victoria who referred the decision back to the Home Secretary, Matthew White Ridley. Dr Berry and Dr Nicolson came from Broadmoor to interview Mary and concluded that the murder had been the premeditated act of a sane woman.
Mary and her family seemed confident that there would be a last minute reprieve until the night before her execution, when they finally seemed to accept the hopelessness of her situation. Her father was adamant that there was no insanity in the family, explaining Caroline’s incarceration in the asylum, ‘She was as right as you are until her brother was killed, and then she fretted so much that her mind gave way.’
Mary Ann’s spirit also gave way at the very end and she was taken to the gallows in a very distressed state. She was given a drop of 7ft and so became the first execution at St Albans Prison for nineteen years and the last woman to hang in Hertfordshire.
Of the cases that occurred in 1899 the execution of Mary Ansell had all the hallmarks of infamy, but it was the execution six days later which would have the most profound effect on the Billingtons and on the regulation of all British executioners. Mary Eliza Fox married Edward Bell and they lived together at Orby, Lincolnshire. Edward worked as a farm labourer at Weston Marsh near Spalding and they had two children, Florence in 1894 and Victor in 1897.
In the spring of 1899, Edward Bell became infatuated with another local girl, Mary Hodson from Gedney, near Long Sutton. He kept this romance a secret and when his wife fell ill he played the part of the attentive husband, rushing to and from the doctor’s while his mother-in-law nursed her daughter. He returned from his latest visit to Dr Bassit with some powder which his wife took and washed down with soda water. He rejoined the rest of the family for dinner but they were soon alerted to screams and the sounds of Mrs Bell suffering violent convulsions. She died within ten minutes.
Bell wept, ‘Oh Polly, you have died and left me; what am I to do?’
The doctor who attended was Dr Barrett of Spalding. Bell told him that Mary had died peacefully and Barrett issued a death certificate which stated that she had died from ‘inflammation of the bowels’. Mary Bell was buried without further investigation.
A week later, Mary’s mother, Mrs Fox, received an anonymous letter that appeared to be in Bell’s handwriting, which read: ‘I cannot bear it any longer. I am miserable. The doctor did not give the powder. Going away tomorrow.’
Mrs Fox contacted the police and Mary’s body was exhumed. The post-mortem could not find a cause of death and the stomach and other organs were sent to Dr Stephenson1 of Guy’s Hospital for further examination, along with a broken bottle that contained the medication Bell had first given his wife.
Bell had been slowly poisoning his wife but had given up when she had complained that the medicine in the bottle tasted bitter and burnt her throat. Stephenson discovered that Bell’s ‘remedy’ for this setback was to administer a lethal dose of Strychnine.
Bell was found guilty of the crime, known as the Spalding Marsh Murder, and sentenced to hang. The execution took place at Lincoln Gaol on 25 July 1899. However, it was the repercussions of the events surrounding the execution, and not the murder, that were felt for longest.
The medical officer of the prison, Dr Mitchinson, stated, ‘the execution was performed with all due skill and humanity, death being instantaneous.’
The Lincoln Leader reported that ‘the murderer was executed by Billington junior’. But in this innocuous sentence lay the problem. Bell had not been executed by James Billington but by his twenty-six-year-old son William. This was an action that William carried out without being appointed to do so.
It was not William, but James who the Governor expected to arrive in the late afternoon on the day before the execution. A telegram had been received by the prison, it read ‘will arrive at 4 o’clock’ and was signed simply ‘Billington’.
At 6 o’clock William arrived, telling the Governor that his father was too ill to attend and that he had come in his place. The Governor queried the telegram, but William claimed that he knew nothing of it and therefore his father must have sent it.
The Governor and William met with the Under-Sheriff. William explained that, although he had never carried out an execution without his father supervising, he had experience of hanging convicts without being assisted. The Under-Sheriff decided that William should be allowed to carry out the execution.
When the Prison Commission saw the name ‘William Billington’ on the documentation, they queried it with the Governor, asking whether he really meant the approved assistant, Thomas Billington. The Governor pointed out that Thomas had previously assisted at executions at Lincoln and he would have known if it had been the same man.
The Prison Commission was not satisfied with this response and both William and James were asked to provide details of the former’s previous experience and the latter’s reasons for his non-attendance. On 5 August 1899 William Billington replied to the Governor of Lincoln Prison:
In answer to your letter on the 5th instant I must tell you that I have never been to an execution before. And I am very sorry that I told you I had, but I should not have undertook if I had not been confident that I could do it in a proper manner as my father had given me all instructions necessary, he also gave me his book all about the weight of the culprits and the length of the drop required, he had also shown me how to adjust the straps and rope and I was confident I could not go wrong. With my father starting to be ill so sudden he was afraid you could not get an executioner in time and I was the only person that my father could trust to do it as well as himself or he would not have sent me. I carried out the execution all right and satisfactory to you so I hope you will look over me telling you I had been before as I was afraid you would not let me do it if I told you that I had never been before.
I remain your obedient servant, William Billington
James Billington sent the following letter, it appears to be in his own hand but the last sentence is extremely confusing, making most sense if it were written by a third person or by Billington whilst in some kind of confused state.
To the Governor, Lincoln
August 4th 1899
I’m in receipt of your letter. I was away on Thursday, and it was 10 o’clock I got home last night. But on Sunday night 24th July at about 12 I was taken very bad with the influenza so I sent for my son for I could not officiate or visit you. So I sent my son to Lincoln to tell you that I was very bad in bed and that I would come on Monday night if was any better, then I told my son to tell the Sheriff and the Governor, that you could carry out the execution as well as my father.
Yours obediently, James Billington
A growing panic wove its way from the Sheriff and Governor at Lincoln to the Prison Commission and the Home Office. A series of memos and letters flew between Ruggles-Brise at the Prison Commission and the prisons. These are particularly interesting, not least because they take an unorthodox approach to William Billington and the fact that he was no more than a man unconnected to the Prison Commission who’d walked in and lied his way into conducting an execution:
To Mr Ruggles-Brise 15/8/1899
It appears from enquiries made that William Billington had never been at an execution before … the list of candidates for Assistant Executioner was submitted to the Sheriff who, it appears, did not intend to supply one. It was only at the last moment when the father James Billington fell ill that he recommended his son William.
It appears that since this execution at Lincoln (Edward Bell 25/7/1899) he has taken every opportunity to act as assistant to his father.
Suddenly aware of the mis-appointment of William Billington, the Prison Commission sent out the following standard letter to all prisons:
1st August 1899
Be good enough to say whether, when James Billington has officiated at your prison as executioner he has been accompanied by anyone save the paid Assistant Executioner, and if so by whom and in what circumstances.
Several prisons, including St Albans, Winchester, Norwich and Chelmsford replied that he had had no assistant. Carnarvon, Derby and Swansea stated that he was only accompanied by the one appointed assistant. However, there were other replies that told a different story, like this extract from one written by the Governor of Wandsworth:
Billington wrote, offering services of his son. No Christian name is mentioned and it never occurred to me that he meant a son not on the authorised list. On the day following the receipt of his offer I received the enclosed and accepted the offer of the writer believing he was the authorized assistant. When he came with his father and we went to try the apparatus on the day before the execution I saw he was not the man I believed him to be and told him so but I did not think it advisable to turn him out of the prison so let him remain. After the execution I told him and his father I had no power to pay an unauthorised assistant.
This was in fact the execution of Robert Ward on 4 October 1899 and the money dispute was only resolved when William Billington asked the Prison Commission to intervene. After some debate the Governor was instructed to pay the fee.
When James Billington sent William in his place he put Edward Bell in real danger of suffering a botched or prolonged death. He also exposed himself and his sons to some harsh scrutiny.
The following letter was sent by Ruggles-Brise to the Secretary of State:
19th August 1899
Sir,
I have the honour to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State certain irregularities which have taken place at the executions recently carried out at Lincoln and Nottingham prisons.
At Lincoln Prison the execution of Edward Bell was fixed to take place on the 25th July and, in accordance with the practice laid down by the Secretary of State, the list of persons considered suitable to carry out or assist at an execution was forwarded by the Governor of the prison to the Sheriff. On this list the name of William Billington does not occur. James Billington, who is generally employed as executioner was selected for that post, no assistant being apparently considered necessary. At 6 p.m. on the day before the execution William Billington, his son, arrived at the prison and stated that his father was too ill to come, although a telegram had been received from the latter stating that he would arrive at 4 p.m. The Governor at once communicated with the Under Sheriff, who interviewed William Billington and learned from him that he had never carried out an execution without his father being present, yet in the presence of his father he had done so without any assistance. Upon this the Deputy Sheriff was satisfied and William Billington carried out the execution. The Governor however, in his report, stated that the man showed great want of experience as he did not know how to tie the rope to the beam, or to close the rubber washer down on the neck. The Commissioners at once instituted enquiries and they have been unable to find that William Billington had ever been at a previous execution, and on the Governor asking him for an explanation of his statement he admits that it was false, stating that his father was suddenly taken ill and that he had given him full directions.
At Nottingham Prison, Elias Torr was executed on the 9th instant. As before, the High Sheriff was supplied with the list of persons competent to carry out an execution, and James Billington was employed as executioner and his son William as assistant. The Governor says that the other son, Thomas, who is on the list was written to but he had gone away from home, and, time pressing, he, on the father’s recommendation allowed the son William to assist instead of sending for another of the approved assistants.
In June 1898, the last occasion on which an assistant (Wade), other than one of the Billington’s was employed, the Governor of Cambridge Prison reported that there appeared to be an unfriendly feeling between James Billington and Robert Wade and it would appear as if Billington were trying to prevent the employment of any but members of his own family. If this continues the object of the Secretary of State in having a list of trained assistants to fall back upon in emergency will be frustrated.
The Commissioners therefore report the facts to the Secretary of State, as it seems to them that a grave risk is incurred unless greater care is exercised by the Sheriff in the selection of an executioner.
The response to this was swift. That same day a memo was sent back and copied to the Under-Sheriff of Lincoln. The message was brief:
… the Secretary of State considers it of great importance that no one whose name does not appear on the list supplied to the Sheriff should be employed either as executioner or assistant.
In the copy filed at the Home Office an additional note was added and included the comment: ‘James Billington seems to be trying to prevent the employment of any but members of his own family.’ This ultimately led to a lengthy debate between the Prison Commission, Prison Governors and Sheriffs. The particular focus was where the responsibility lay for the appointment of executioners and assistants. The Prison Governors argued that it lay with the Sheriffs. The Prison Commission’s view at 28 September 1899 was recorded in an internal memo:
We never interfere with the discretion of the Sheriff as to the selection of an Executioner, or the Assistant Executioner, although we assist him by supplying a list of those who have been found suitable for those offices. But the Sheriff is at perfect liberty to select a man not on the list, and we say nothing because he alone is responsible for the execution.
William Billington is not yet on the approved list. Thomas Billington has not yet been removed from it. The time may come when William Billington may be placed upon the list, but until the matter is settled things had better be entirely left to the Sheriff to select whom he likes whether on or off the list, and if he engages men not on the list he, after all, is responsible, not the Governors or the Commissioners.
A letter to Major Clayton in October 1899 explains that the occurrence which led to the Rules made in 1891 was the unsatisfactory conduct of Berry, the then executioner, in the case of Conway at Kirkdale. It explains:
The Home Office recommendations which followed a hearing on the Conway case suggested that a ‘list of executioners should be given to the Sheriff.’ The Home Office asked the Prison Commission to implement this on 6th September 1891.
And the letter concluded:
I do not think the Commission have made themselves responsible for the competence of an Executioner …
12 October 1899
In response, Mr Ruggles-Brise argues that if the requirement is for the Governors to supply the Sheriffs with a list of Executioners who have been deemed to be competent by the Prison Commission then ultimately the responsibility for the Executioner’s ongoing behaviour falls with the Prison Commission. This being the case the Prison Commission must be clear of the steps that must be taken to put someone on that list.
Meanwhile, James Billington was aware that his actions were coming under close scrutiny and was, at first, careful to be seen to behave correctly, writing the following to the Governor of Holloway Prison on 26 September 1899:
Dear Sir,
If you should want an assistant I can bring my son with me to the gaol at Wandsworth on the 3rd October to carry out the execution on the 4th October, but not Thomas Billington, he has been away from home about 12 weeks and don’t know ware [sic] he is, but can bring son William Billington.
The Governor informed him that he would be able to bring William as his assistant. The man to be executed was Robert Ward, a twenty-seven-year-old bricklayer who had murdered his daughters, Margaret Florence and Ada Louisa. The drop given was 7ft 3in, and the inquest reported that instantaneous death had resulted from the dislocation of four of the cervical vertebrae.
Despite the apparent success of the execution on 4 October 1899, the Governor contacted the Prison Commission with concerns about James Billington’s conduct. Mr Milford of the Prison Commission asked for a report from the Medical Officer stating, ‘his opinion of Billington and whether he perceived any decided indication in him of giving way to intemperance.’ Milford then relayed these concerns to the Home Office in the following letter:
19th October 1899
Sir,
With reference to my letter of the 19th August last on the subject of the selection of men to act as assistants at executions. I have the honour to state, for the information of secretary Sir Matthew Ridley, that the Commissioners have received unsatisfactory report concerning the demeanour of James Billington, who recently conducted the execution of R Ward at Wandsworth Prison.
It appears from the reports of the Governor and Medical Officer that he showed signs of intemperance previous to the execution.
Having regard to the grave scandal that would arise were an execution to miscarry, the Commissioners desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the present procedure governing the choice of the executioner, which they do not consider to be satisfactory and, instead, to throw a great responsibility upon the Secretary of State and the Commissioners which does not belong to them by law.
It was in consequence of the report of the Capital Sentences Committee and the instructions of the Home Office, that, since 1891, a list is kept by the Commissioners, which it is the practice for the Governor of the prison to furnish to the Sheriff to aid him in the selection of an executioner.
This list is headed ‘Candidates reported to be competent for the office of executioner, or who have acted as assistants at executions.’ This list now contains four names. The first two J Billington and Wade were actually instructed according to the plan laid down by the Capital Sentences Committee, by W Barr the then Medical Officer of Kirkdale Prison, who was a specialist on the subject and who undertook the duty gratuitously and voluntarily. Since his retirement no instruction has taken place. The other two persons on the list, Wilkinson and Thomas Billington have received no instructions beyond being present at executions as assistants.
It seems to the Commissioners that a grave responsibility is incurred in furnishing the Sheriff with a list which induces the belief that the persons named are competent executioners and moreover respectable men who can be trusted to be sober and reliable. The Sheriff is only too glad to escape from his responsibility and if anything went wrong would no doubt be the first to throw the blame on the Commissioners and the Secretary of State.
I believe that, previous to 1891 the Secretary of State disclaimed all responsibility for the choice of an executioner and that the practice was for the Sheriffs of Counties to be guided by the selection of the Sheriffs of London. The matter, having regard to recent instances, seems to require serious consideration and it seems that, if the Commissioners are to assume the responsibility of furnishing a list to the Sheriff, means should be devised that the persons on the list should receive adequate instruction at the hands of a competent officer who should be duly appointed and paid for the duty.
Such a course would imply the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for the manner of conducting executions, and as, having regard to the previous history of the matter and the present state of the law, the Commissioners think it likely that the Secretary of State might not be willing to incur this responsibility. Instructions as to the future regulation of the matter are requested.
Following this, William Billington also contacted the Prison Commission and asked them to intervene when the Governor of Wandsworth Prison refused to pay him after he had fulfilled his role as Assistant Executioner at the same execution. The Governor claimed that he wasn’t expecting to pay for an assistant who wasn’t on the official list, but after some debate he was instructed to pay the fee.
It was the lack of trained assistants that helped give William Billington an opportunity to become an executioner. Apart from James and Thomas Billington and William Warbrick, the only other name that appeared on the official Home Office list of 1899 was Robert Wade. Wade was an Accrington man who avoided publicly acknowledging his role as Assistant Executioner, even to the extent of keeping it secret from his family. He chose to receive Home Office communications via the Superintendent of Police at the County Police Office in Church near Accrington, and in fact had one of the briefest careers as an assistant.
In October 1899 Mr Ruggles-Brise was informed that Wade was reported ‘at one time’ to be nervous. His only appearance at an execution thus far had been the notorious Milsom/Fowler/Seaman triple hanging; an event which was undoubtedly an even more stressful experience than most first-timer’s had to contend with. He was employed at just one further execution, that of Charles Scott on 28 November 1899.
While Mr Ruggles-Brise observed that ‘the Sheriff is only too glad to escape from his responsibilities,’ no one seemed to think it appropriate to punish William Billington for his deception.
Instead the Prison Commission simply pointed out the irregularity of the situation to James Billington and suggested that if William applied, his name could now go on the list as he had now become experienced.
What this debate ultimately concluded was that there was a need for executioners and assistants to be properly trained and officially recognised to avoid what Mr Ruggles-Brise described as ‘scandal quote’, i.e. the humiliation of the Prison Commission at the hands of the media.
Despite this, neither William Warbrick nor William Billington were properly trained until 1900, and by then Warbrick had become open in his attempts to thwart the ambitions of the Billington family. He felt that the Billington sons were being appointed as assistants because of nepotism rather than ability and he embarked on a series of letters to the Prison Commission. In December 1899, he wrote:
I hear that William Billington has applied to be put on the list of Executioners. If that is so, will you please allow me to say that I think it will be a mistake if you accept him; for some reasons; first he is only a boy and also he is a very forward young fellow, and he is very fond of drink and I am afraid that he would be no credit either to himself or to the Home Office. I know what I am saying because I call at the house for club money and have done since he was a baby, so that I hope you will pause before placing him on the list.
With kind regards …
Many of these letters became directed at William Billington and included slurs on his character, all following the theme ‘he is too young and addicted to drink.’ Mr Ruggles-Brise then asked the police to provide him with a report on both Warbrick and William Billington and received the reply:
The police report favourably on Warbrick and William Billington. If your proposals regarding instruction of executioners are approved both these men might be instructed, but as there is some ill-feeling between them it would be advisable to have them up to town separately.
Although the need for formal training was now clearly established it was James Billington’s conduct at the first execution of the new century that acted as the catalyst for its implementation.
Endnote
1 The same Dr Thomas Stephenson was a key witness in the trial of several murderers that the Billingtons went on to execute. He was born in Rainton, Yorkshire in 1838, studying at John Collis Nesbit’s Kennington School of Agriculture and Chemistry, then Guy’s Hospital Medical School, graduating in 1863. In 1872 he began working for the Home Office as a scientific analyst and was the expert witness called in the majority of poisoning cases that came to court between 1881 and 1908 including Dr Cream, George Chapman, Walter Horsford and Mary Ansell. Stephenson received a knighthood in 1904 and died at home in Streatham High Road on 27 July 1908.