Infanticide at Ruardean

Infanticide at Ruardean#

A gruesome tale, the result of a perhaps ill-considered will, in which a mother killed several of her newly born children, disposed of their bodies under the floor of the barn, and then made a confession as her death from consumption approached.

A Telling#

One of my motivations for descending into the newspaper archives as part of my storytelling research process is two-fold: firstly, to find tales that may be tellable; and secondly, to find areas of social history, as reported in the papers of the day, that might provide some sort of context for the folk tales of the time. Even if the historical context does not feature explicitly in the telling of a particular story, it may colour my interpretation of a story, or provide some unstated background or context that fleshes out a character or situation in my own imagination. This in turn may influence my own choice of word, or phrase, or even tone of voice, as part of the telling, and as such influence the performance of the tale.

The following anecdote provides some background colour relating to attitudes towards, and the treatment of, mothers of children born out of wedlock. It was reported by John Hassell the second volume of his Tour of the Isle of Wight, published in 1790, and recounts his experience of entering Godshill Church (p.88):

Upon our entering the porch we observed abstracts from several acts of parliament fixed against the door, and among them one that excited both our curiosity and risibility; — it was from an act made in the seventh of James the First, which enacts, that every female who unfortunately intrudes on the parish a second illegitimate child, shall be liable to imprisonment and hard labour in Bridewell for six months.

Now as the number of females on this island much exceeds that of the males; and as, from the mild temperature of the climate, circumstances frequently arise among the lower ranks that render the intention of this act of no effect; we could not help thinking this public exhibition of the abstract as rather a rigorous exertion of Justice.

We found it was not very unusual here for the young men, from the deficiency of numbers just spoken of, to pay their devoirs to more than one young woman at a time; and as it is not possible for him legally to unite himself to all of them, he generally bestows his hand on her who had first presented him with a pledge of their love.

This, however, is seldom done till the approach of a second pledge from the same person renders such an act of compassion needful, in order to avoid the consequences of the tremendous anathema fixed on the church door.

At the time — the late eighteenth century — an unmarried mother could seek “child support” from the father by identifying him as such to the Parish authorities. They would then attempt to hold the father financially responsible for the child, or at least expect him to contribute to the child’s upkeep.If no support was forthcoming, the Parish would then step in to provide support, although the mother may also gfind herself committed to the workhouse. In the case Hassell describes, it seems that the officers of the Godshill parish were attempting to minimise the costs to the parish from supporting women who had had multiple children out of wedlock to different fathers by committing them to a Bridewell — which is to say, a house of correction, or a prison — rather than a workhouse.

But things were to change. The new Poor Law of 1834 made single mothers responsible for the upkeep of their illegitimate children: charges could no longer be made against the unnmarried father for “child support”, as had traditionally been the case, and the parish would neither pursue the father for such monies, nor provide support to the mother or child: if a single woman could not support herself and her child, she would have to go to the workhouse.

Opponents of the Bill claimed that such a change in the law would lead to an increase in the concealment of births, neonaticide (the murder of a child during the first day of life following birth) and infanticide: some proportion of mothers unable to look after their illegitimate offspring would now no doubt feel forced into taking this drastic course of action.

First reports of infanticide in the Forest#

The facts of the original matter appeared in the local, regional and national press through November and December, 1842. The story was presented almost fully formed in the original announcements of it.

Horrible infanticides, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000532/18421105/030/0003 Gloucester Journal - Saturday 05 November 1842

HORRIBLE INFANTICIDES — SIX INFANTS MURDERED BY THEIR MOTHER.— We have this week the painful duty of recording a case of long continued and inhuman depravity almost unparalleled in the annals of crime. It appears that a woman named Frances Bennett, residing at Ruardean Hill, in the Forest of Dean, being very ill, and probably fearing to die with the undivulged guilt of murder upon her conscience, communicated to the Rev. Henry Formby, curate of Ruardean, that about twelve months since she became the mother of a child by a man named Thomas Yapp, with whom she has been for eight or ten years cohabiting, which child, after it had lived a few days she destroyed by poisoning it; after which she and Yapp buried it beneath the pavement of the brewhouse. The wretched woman further added that she had been the mother of five other children by the same man, all of whom she had murdered at their birth, and with Yapp’s assistance had buried their bodies at separate spots beneath the floor of the brewhouse and barn adjoining her cottage. These horrid confessions seemed, from their unexampled atrocity, to be more like the ravings of delirium than truth; but upon information being given to the police, and a search being made in the spots indicated by the unnatural woman, the skeletons of her six murdered offspring were all found, and stamped truth upon a tale too horrid else for belief. Upon this, Yapp was taken into custody, and a policeman, we believe, remained to take charge of the woman, who repeated her confession to her sister, and afterwards to the policeman Fowler. The circumstances being communicated to John Cooke, Esq. coroner, a warrant was issued for summoning a jury to hold an inquest. By this time, however, the woman Frances Bennett, had recovered in a measure the hardihood of her character, and on the inquest, which was held on Tuesday last, she positively denied that she had ever given birth to any children, except to two which she bore to her late husband, and which were alive now; and she, moreover, in the strongest manner, protested that she had never made any communication such as that above stated, either to her sister, to the policeman Fowler, or to the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Formby. The latter gentleman was examined by the coroner, and deposed as above; and he further admitted that the woman had subsequently made further disclosures and confessions to him,* but as they were made to him in his spiritual capacity he must decline to divulge them!* And though the rev. gentleman had taken the usual oath before the coroner to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” he nevertheless resisted in declining to give in evidence what the woman had stated to him. This conduct on the part of a Protestant clergyman of the Established Church, which is certainly somewhat singular, and we apprehend not quite recognised by the laws of the country, astonished both the coroner and the jury. We know that in the Roman Catholic priesthood the secrets of the confessional are held to be sacred, and very properly so, since the minister enters into a previous solemn engagement never to divulge them, and the communications are made in full faith in the inviolability of that engagement, and solely for a spiritual purpose, that of receiving absolution; but Protestant clergymen have no reservation of that kind to plead, and the whole truth with them must mean all that they know upon the particular subject. After, without effect, endeavouring to prevail upon Mr. Formby to state all that the woman had told him, and after the unavailing remonstrances against withholding of evidence, the coroner left the point as it stood, and passed on to the examination of the sister of Frances Bennett, whose evidence was to the effect that on Saturday last, the 29th October, she was with her sister, who had been in a weak state of health for some time and had been confined to her bed for about a week; that before Mr. Formby called, her sister made an alarm and exclaimed that she would have her dead children dug up and buried in the church-yard. She said that she delivered herself of the children over a pan of water, and that immediately the infants were born she held them under the water till they were dead, and that then she and Yapp buried them. She added that the last of the six children was not served in this way, but lived for two days; that it was weakly and she gave it some arsenic and it died; that Yapp was very sorry when he found this child was dead, and said he would not have lost it for fifty pounds; and that they both together buried the child in the brewhouse.—At this stage of the proceedings it was thought advisable to adjourn the inquiry, in order to afford opportunity for further and more deliberate inquiry into the circumstances of this mysterious and very extraordinary case; and the inquest was accordingly adjourned till Wednesday next.

One of the strange features in this case is that the sister, who resides next door to Frances Bennett, states that she never suspected the latter to be in the family way; nor does it appear that any of the other female neighbours ever expressed any suspicions of the kind. And thus for about the last eight years, according to her own statement, had this unnatural and monstrous woman been almost yearly in the constant practice of giving birth to and murdering a child without incurring any suspicion; and it was only from the compunctions of her own overladen guilty conscience, in what she no doubt supposed to be the dread hour of death, that the horrid tragedy above narrated was disclosed to the world.

This woman, Frances Bennett, we understand, is the widow of a man named Bennett, who at his death left her his property, but with the absurd, and in this case mischievous proviso, that if ever she married again the property should pass from her. This stipulation probably was the cause of her cohabiting with Yapp, instead of being married to him, and may also have been the remote inducement which led to the multiplied murders of which she acknowledged herself to have been guilty. From our inquiries, we gather that poverty could not have been the motive to such unnatural conduct, as she and Yapp were, for persons in a labouring class, in easy circumstances, Their cottage is well furnished, and has every appearance of comfort. The occurrence, we need hardly say, has created a great sensation in the neighbourhood, and various rumours are afloat.

Further disclosures in this most foul and most unnatural case are looked for with much anxiety; and it is hoped that the scruples which the Rev. Mr. Formby felt as to giving his evidence will, at the next assembling of the jury be removed, more especially, as we believe there can be no doubt that by a continued refusal to give legitimate evidence, he may render himself amenable to unpleasant consequences. With regard to the wretched woman herself, who has been the author of this frightful tragedy, we understand she appears to be between forty and fifty years of age, and that her illness is of a very serious character, so much so as to lead to the opinion that she will not recover.

Other, much briefer, reports, captured something of the horror but also managed to add additional detail.

A paragraph sufficient to freeze the blood, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000056/18421110/004/0002 Freeman’s Journal - Thursday 10 November 1842

HORRID DISCLOSURES. — Under this heading we find the following frightful paragraph in the Monmouthesire Merlin of Saturday. It is sufficient to freeze the blood:—

“A woman named Fanny Bennett, residing at Ruardean Woodside, who is at present apparently on her death-bed, and feeling remorse of conscience in the prospect of eternity, has confessed having, at different periods, murdered six of her own children by poison. The cruel monster was left a widow, and has cohabited with a collier who is at present in custody, and who is supposed to have been privy to one or more of the horrid murders. The remains of two of the unfortunate children were, according to the directions of their inhuman parent, found near a barn-door belonging to her premises, two under the brewhouse, and the other two in another part of the premises. At the period of one of the murders the mother kept an ale-house, and used the sign as part of a coffin. An inquest was held on the remains of the ill-fated innocents on Tuesday last, but we have not heard the result.”

A couple of weeks later, in a front page article on “Mal-administration of justice”, the Illustrated London News of December 3rd, 1824, further commented on the case, quoting a leader in The Times that appeared to call out something of the process by which the magistrates had attempted to get a restatemnt of France Bennett’s confession whilst in the presence of Thomas Yapp:

A visit from the magistrates, November 1842

https://archive.org/details/sim_illustrated-london-news_1842-12-03_1_30/mode/2up Illustrated London News 1842-12-03: Vol 1 Iss 30 Publication date 1842-12-03, p1

MAL-ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

…

The only other example of social propriety outraged by the authorities is of a very different but a very horrible kind. It will be recollected that we sometime back recorded a dreadful case of periodical infanticide, involving six victims, on the part of an unnatural mother and her paramour. That woman is since dead, and the coroner’s jury have returned a verdict of wilful murder against Thomas Yapp, the man with whom the wretched murderess had so long held the dark companionship of crime. The woman was dying, and in the agonies of dissolution and remorse, although there was abundance of evidence without hers to convict her survivor, the authorities committed the improper and brutal alternative of thrusting that bad being, the cause of all her crimes, into her chamber, and there extorting from her what, alas! was only an appalling and bitter perjury, presenting another fearful verification of the wise man’s words, that “Love is strong as death.” The Times newspaper, in one of its stern, strong, commonsense leaders, has condensed a narrative of this shocking fact with truth, argument, and power, which our readers will admit and admire as they read. It reflects boldly upon the conduct of the coroner, magistrates, and superintendents of police:—

On the 1st of November a coroner’s order, issued apparently not without an eye to the clergyman, forbade admittance to the sick woman’s chamber to every one except her sister and two policemen, who stayed with her day and night. On the 9th, in consequence of a strong remonstrance from the clergyman, urging the useless cruelty of this treatment of a woman, who would probably die before she could be executed, the prohibition was withdrawn, but in two days was reimposed. Meantime the prisoner had had to receive a different kind of visit. It appeared on Friday, the 11th of November, that the magistrate’s clerk, a county magistrate, and the superintendent, had been to see her, bringing the man Yapp with them,—that they had demanded a repetition on oath in his presence of all her previous statements,—and that she, on oath we presume, had absolutely denied all she had hitherto said. Since this peried (must not we say owing to this treatment?) our authority describes the woman’s state of mind—at first submissive and penitent—as hardened into a state only to be called diabolical.

And now is this frightful result unnatural? Is it not the plain consequence which was to be apprehended by any man of common thought and feeling fromthe reckless treatment which she has received? A woman is carried off (and rightly) to prison, sick, weak, agitated, awakened to a sense of her guilt, and open to the influence, and relying—it may be superstitiously—on the offices of the minister of religion upon whose guidance that sense of guilt has thrown her, but scarce conscious, and still less reconciled to the consciousness, that she has said, and will be required to repeat, what is to sacrifice the life of herself and her former paramour. Does it not seem sheer futility—with whatever object—for the officers of justice, after separating her from those beneficial influences to which she had in part surrendered herself, to bring before her in person this very man, whose presence of all men in the world she had most to dread, and to demand of her to repeat on oath, in his presence, and for the avowed purpose of taking away his life, those statements, the substance of which they already possessed? Did they suppose the human mind to be made of clay or wood, or did they suppose this miserable woman so purified from all humaarn feeling, so entirely possessed by a sense of right and justice, that she would tamely resign herself to such treatment? Did they expect to find her willing to consummate her sacrifice, thus studiously presented to her in its most revolting aspect? Or did they think that she, a woman on the brink of eternity, surrounded by, and absorbed in, such appalling realities and recollections, would be bullied into acquiescence by the authority of a magistrate and policeman? What did they think, what could they expect, but precisely what has happened?

The woman is dead, and the case, with all its dreadful enormity, speaks for itself. We will add nothing to the able comments of our contemporary, but remain content with allowing it to close the long list of examples of manifest mal-administration of justice in several aspects which a mere glance at the journals of the day has enabled us to array before our readers. They are melancholy evidences of individual misconduct, which take a wide and broad effect upon the happiness and confidence of the community, and are evils which unquestionably require the interposition of the higher authorities to rebuke and put down.

The coroner was soon on the case, and after an initial meeting of the jury, the case was adjourned.

Extraordinary Charge of Child-Murder in the Forest of Dean, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000393/18421112/023/0003 Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 12 November 1842

FOREST OF DEAN. The Extraordinary Charge of Child-Murder in the Forest of Dean.— The adjourned inquiry into the mysterious and horrible cases of wholesale child-murder at Ruardean, in the Forest of Dean, the particulars of which published last week, was resumed on Wednesday last, before John Cooke, Esq. coroner, and in the presence of several of the magistrates of the district. The evidence adduced was similar to that to which we adverted last week, and no new fact of a material nature transpired. The jury expressed an opinion that if further time were allowed, additional evidence might probably be obtained, and the inquest was consequently again adjourned till Wednesday next, the 16th inst. In the meantime, Thomas Yapp continues in custody, and a policeman also remains in the house where the tragedy was committed, in order to take charge the woman, Frances Bennett, who continues in the same state of ill-health which we reported last week. [The Times of Thursday devotes an article to the discussion of the question, of how far the clergyman to whom the woman under the tortures of troubled conscience made certain horrid disclosures, is bound to communicate what she told him. The Times arrives at the conclusion that he is not called upon to disclose what was communicated him under such circumstances. We will refer to the arguments in our next]

It is not clear what “additional evidence” the jury may have been hoping for? Perhaps it was some inkling of what Frances Bennett had confessed to the village curate? But felt justified in preserving confidence, whilst questions around his behaviour continued to be asked.

A privileged confession, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000398/18421116/013/0003 Hereford Journal - Wednesday 16 November 1842

Confessions. —A point altogether novel as respects the Ministers of our Protestant Church, has arisen out of the recent discovery of numerous cases of infanticide in the Forest of Dean. It appears that the wretched woman, Frances Bennett, the avowed murderess of six of her helpless offspring, made some further confession to the Rev. H. Formby, the Curate of Ruardean, which that gentleman, looking upon it in the light of a privileged spiritual communication, declines to divulge. The question therefore arises, Is he either legally or morally bound to do so? We think he is both, if the disclosures will in any way further the ends of justice—if it will remove any painful suspense which has long hung over some “pent-up guilt,” or wipe away the stain which has perhaps rested on some innocent person’s memory. In any, or all, of these cases, independently of the undoubted requirements of English law, Mr. Formby is, we apprehend, bound as a Christian to make the disclosure. If the confession relates only to some private moral guilt now affecting no-one but the prisoner, thare may be some ground for the contrary opinion which has been expressed, but otherwise Mr. Formby stands precisely in the same position as any other witness in a court of justice, and is required to speak the whole truth. We were once cognizant of the case of a clergyman to whom a murderer made a confession, but which fact the minister declined to divulge to us or any individual, even his nearest relative; when, however, required to do so before a jury, he unhesitatingly gave evidence to that effect, and the criminal was convicted. Any other course indeed would have been a perversion of justice, and an act of the most grievous wrong. It was Dr. Murray, we think, who in his evidence before a parliamentary committee stated that although a Roman Catholic priest would use his best exertions to prevent the commission of murder any other crime, yet he would feel bound not to disclose anything uttered the confessional. This is a dangerous system, and God forbid that the corruption of auricular confession should ever be introduced into the Church of England! She has hitherto gone on very well without it, and will continue to do so. The very end and object of an acknowledgment of guilt is to afford reparation, and how is that to be effected by concealment ou the part the person to whom facts are communicated? Even if private feeling would be appeased, how is the wrong done to the public to be expiated? In this respect, the spiritual adviser is in the same position as any one entrusted with the administration of the law: the offender, indeed, is not to be restrained from making the confession, but he ought to be informed that doing so he incurs all the temporal consequences that may result from his acknowledgment.

The story was also picked up by The Nonconformist — strapline “The dissidence of dissent and the protestantism of the protestant religion.”, price 6d. — presumably becuase of the involvement of the Rev. Henry Formby in having taken Frances bennett’s confession.

Inhuman depravity almost unparalleled in the annals of crime, Novemeber 1842

The Noncomformist 1842-11-16: Iss 84, vol. 2 Publication date 1842-11-16

LONDON: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1842.

HORRIBLE INFANTICIDE—SIX INFANTS MURDERED BY THER MOTHER.— We have this week the painful duty of recording a case of long continued and inhuman depravity almost unparalleled in the annals of crime. It appears that a woman named Frances Bennett, residing at Ruardean hill, in the forest of Dean, being very ill, and probably fearing to die with the undivulged guilt of murder upon her conscience, communicated to the Rev. Henry Formby, curate of Ruardean, that about twelve months since she became the mother of a child by a man named Thomas Yapp, with whom she had been cohabiting for about eight or ten years, which child, after it had lived a few days, she destroyed by poisoning it, after which she and Yapp buried it beneath the pavement of the brewhouse. The wretched woman further added that she had been the mother of five other children by the same man, all of whom she had murdered at their birth, and, with Yapp’s assistance had buried their bodies at separate snate bonnets the doar of the brewhouse, and near a barn adjoining her cottage. A search being made in the spots indicated by unnatural mother, the skeletons of her six murdered offspring were all found. Yapp was taken into custody, and a policeman remained to take charge of the woman, who repeated her confession to her sister, and afterwards to the policeman Fowler. An inquest was instituted to inquire into this horrid affair, but was adjourned till a future day, in order to afford an opportunity for a further and more deliberate inquiry into the circumstances of this mysterious and extraordinary case.

After giving the facts of the case in materially similar way to reports elsewhere, the Gloucestershire Chronicle of Saturday 19 November 1842 also passed comment, albeit briefly and apparently grudgingly, on the refusal of the clergyman who had received, but failed to share further, Frances Bennett’s confession.

A curious and important questions, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000393/18421119/034/0003 Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 19 November 1842

[We mentioned last week that the Times had devoted an article the discussion of the question—how far a clergyman, to whom criminal under the tortures of troubled conscience may make horrible disclosures, is bound to communicate what is told to him; and we stated that should recur to the arguments used our contemporary. Under all circumstances, however, we do not on mature consideration, think it desirable at present, to enter into the question at length. In a legal point of view, the matter is curious and important, and it has not yet received, we believe, judicial decision; but the Times thinks that “the dicta of judges will, amongst some variance, be found to tend to the conclusion that such evidence, though it may be admitted in a court of justice (for even this question has been raised), cannot, or ought not to be compelled.” Our contemporary, however, does not enter into discussion of the question on legal points, but argues “on grounds of humanity, religion, and expediency,” in favour of the course pursued by the Rev. H. Formby, Curate of Ruardean, the case of the wretched woman charged with infanticide. Our respected contemporary, the John Bull, differs from the Times, and gives the following opinion:—“A Protestant Clergyman ought to decline hearing ‘confessions,’ except on the understanding that he will not become an accomplice against justice; and the inducement which is most powerful to tempt a sinner to confess—absolute remission of sins—he cannot offer.”]

The Coroner’s Court Returns a Verdict#

A final meeting of the coroner’s court included the evidence of a man who potentially heard Frances Bennett giving birth to her sixth child, and delivered a verdict. By now, the story was being reported widely.

Wholesale infanticide in the Forest of Dean, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000348/18421123/004/0003 Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser - Wednesday 23 November 1842

WHOLESALE INFANTICIDE IN THE FOREST OF DEAN.

The inquiry into this extraordinary case terminated on Thursday. The adjourned inquest having been held at Ruardean on Wednesday, before Mr. John Cooke, the coroner of the district, several magistrates and other gentlemen of the county attended the proceedings, and the room in which the inquest was held was densely crowded. Several additional witnesses were examined, who gave similar testimony to that which has been already published, and the only difficulty experienced was the connecting the man Thomas Yapp with a knowledge of the crime, it being a rule of law that in no case can the confession of a criminal be made available against an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence. This, however, has been supplied by the evidence of a man of the name of Watkins, which shows Yapp, in addition to the circumstances of his having cohabited with the female prisoner during the last 10 or 12 years, during which period the murders have been committed, and the finding of the bodies of five out of the six infants buried under the kitchen floor, the spot where the female prisoner says she buried them with Yapp’s assistance, to have had a knowledge of the situation of the female prisoner at the time she gave birth to her last child. Watkins states that about last Christmas, he being acquainted with Yapp, was in the neighbourhood of Ruardean, and haviog met Yapp, was invited by him to stay and sleep that night at the house occupied by him and the female prisoner; he accepted the invitation, and slept in the same bed with Yapp in one room, while the prisoner Frances Bennett slept in a bed in the adjoining room; that at about 12 o’clock at night, and from that time until between 2 and 3 in the morning, he heard a suppressed moaning of a person in great pain in the room where the female prisoner was sleeping; that the noise kept him awake till between 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning, after which he dropped off to sleep, and did not wake again until about 5 o’clock, when the male prisoner, Thomas Yapp, got up and went down stairs to get a light, where he appeared to be searching for matches, but said he could not find any. Yapp then returned upstairs, and went into Frances Bennetts’s room, but how long he remained there witness could not tell, as he again fell asleep and heard no more. Witness never thought anything more of the circumstance, but happening to be in the neighbourhood on Saturday last, he saw the female prisoner, Frances Bennett, who, in conversation, asked him if remembered sleeping there last Christmas? He replied that he did, upon which she added, “I deceived you nicely that night, for that was the very time when my last child was born.”

This closed the inquiry, and the Coroner having summed up the evidence in a most luminous manner,

The Jury returned a verdict of “Wilful murder” against both the prisoners, who were fully committed for trial at the next Assizes.

The write-up in the Gloucestershire Chronicle of Saturday 19 November 1842 was widely syndicated.

The Child Murders in the Forest of Dean, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000174/18421121/027/0004 Morning Post - Monday 21 November 1842

THE CHILD MURDERS IN THE FOREST OF DEAN. The inquiry into the unparalleled case of the alleged murder of six infants successively by their mother, at Ruardeanhill, in the Forest of Dean, terminated on Wednesday last, before John Cooke, Esq., coroner. Several magistrates of the district attended the inquest. Four or five additional witnesses were examined on Wednesday, but with the exception of one, their evidence was not materially important for the ends of justice, inasmuch as there were already abundant facts and circumstances making a too clear case against the wretched woman, Frances Bennett; and the only part of the case which, in a legal point of view, was at all defective was, the question how far the evidence made out the criminality of the man, Thomas Yapp, it being a rule of law that the confession of a criminal is not good against an accomplice except it be corroborated by other testimony. In this instance there is, of course, circumstantial corroboration in the facts of Thomas Yapp living with the woman for the last ten or twelve years, the period during which this long list of murders was perpetrated; as also the finding of the skeletons of the numerous murdered infants in the unhallowed graves where the unnatural mother states that she, with Yapp’s assistance, deposited them. On Wednesday last, we understand, another link, connecting him in some degree with the female prisoner, and with a knowledge of her situation at the time when she gave birth to the last of her victims, was supplied under rather singular circumstances. It seems that about last Christmas a person named Watkins, who was known to Yapp, was in the neighbourhood of Ruardean; that Yapp invited him to remain and sleep at the house occupied by him and the female prisoner; that Watkins accepted the invitation, and occupied during the night the same bed as Thomas Yapp, while the female prisoner, Frances Bennett, slept by herself in an adjoining room; that about twelve o’clock at night and from that time till between two and three, the witness heard a suppressed moaning, as of a person in pain, in Frances Bennett’s room; that this noise kept him awake for a long time, but at last he dropped off to sleep, and heard nothing more till about five o’clock, when Thomas Yapp got up and went down stairs to get a light, and appeared to be searching for matches, which he said he could not find; that he then returned up stairs and went into Frances Bennett’s room, but how long he remained there this witness could not tell, as he again fell asleep and heard no more. This witness, it appears, on Saturday last, again came to Ruardean, and saw the prisoner Frances Bennett, who, in conversation, asked him if he remembered sleeping there last Christmas? He replied that he did; upon which she added, “I deceived you all nicely that night; for that was the very time when my last child was born.” The jury, after maturely considering the evidence, returned a verdict of “Wilful murder” against the mother Frances Bennett, as principal, and against Thomas Yapp as accessary; and the coroner issued his warrant for the committal of both prisoners to the county gaol, to take their trial at the next assizes. In pursuance of this warrant, Thomas Yapp, on Thursday morning, and Frances Bennett, in the evening, were brought in custody to this city, and received into the county gaol. Yapp, who has latterly followed the business of an hallier, is about thirty-four years of age, and has the appearance of an illiterate and sullen man. The woman is apparently at least ten years older, and continues in a very weak state ot health, her illness being supposed to be of a consumptive nature; but a surgeon’s certificate was given that she was capable of being removed, and there are reports in the neighbourhood that her present indisposition arises from her being again in a situation likely to become a mother. The discovery of these extraordinary and horrible occurrences has created a great sensation in the secluded district of Ruardean.—Gloucestershire Chronicle.

Following the verdict returned by the Jury in the Coroner’s court, Bennett and Yapp were both remanded to prison.

Five witnesses were examined, November 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000082/18421121/018/0004 Morning Chronicle - Monday 21 November 1842

INFANTICIDES in the FOREST of DEAN.

The adjourned inquest respecting the death of several infants at Ruardean, in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, by the hands of their unnatural mother, was resumed and brought to a conclusion on Wednesday last, before Mr. John Cooke, one of the county coroners.

Our readers will remember that about three weeks since Frances Bennett, believing she was at the point of death, exclaimed that she would have the bodies of her children taken up and buried in consecrated ground; that the clergyman of the parish waited upon her, to whom she confessed that she had been the mother of six children, five of whom she had murdered at their birth, and the sixth and last child she had destroyed by arsenic. This confession she repeated to her sister and to a police officer, and on search being made in the spots which she described, the skeletons of all the six murdered victims were discovered. The confession thus made, added to the finding of the bodies, was sufficient as against the woman herself; but the difficulty was to connect Thomas Yapp with the guilt, by something more tangible than the mere statements of an accomplice; and it is understood that it was for this cause that the adjournment of the inquest took place. On Wednesday five witnesses were examined, but the main deposition was that of a witness named Watkins, who stated that about last Christmas he was in the neighbourhood of Ruardean’s Hill, and the prisoner Thomas Yapp, who lived in the same house with the other prisoner Frances Bennett, invited him (witness) to stay at the house all night. This he (witness) did, and slept in the same bed with Yapp. During the night he heard a noise of moaning or suppressed groans from the adjoining room, which commenced about twelve o’clock, and continued till about two, when witness went fast asleep. About five o’clock, the prisoner Yapp arose and went down stairs, and not being able to find a match, he came up stairs, and passed into the room from whence the groans had issued, and which room was occupied by Frances Bennett. Witness again fell asleep, and did not observe how long Yapp remained in the female prisoner’s room. This witness came to Ruardean’s Hill again on Saturday last, and saw the female prisoner, who asked him did he remember sleeping in her house last Christmas? To which he replied that he did. She then remarked, “Ah, I tricked you all very nicely that night. That was the time when I had my last child, but I kept it very snug, and none of you know anything about it.” The jury, at the close of the inquiry, returned a verdict of wilful murder against Frances Bennett, as principal, and against Thomas Yapp as accessory. The latter was immediately ordered to be committed on the coroner’s warrant to the county gaol, and the woman was also ordered to be committed after it should be ascertained by medical examination, that she was in a state to bear removal.

GLOUCESTER, THURSDAY EVENING.-This morning Thomas Yapp was brought to the county gaol, and this evening, the woman, Francis Bennett, was also received into the gaol. The former is a down-looking man, with a very illiterate and an inexpressive countenance, and apparently about 35 years of age. The woman seems about ten years older. The sic is in a very debilitated state of health, and will probably not live to take her trial. Her illness is supposed to be consumption, and there are reports that she is at the present time again in a way likely to become a mother.

The Death of Frances Bennett#

After being remanded to prison, Bennett was not to live much longer, as the following, widely syndicated story describes.

Arrival at the county gaol, December 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001670/18421203/055/0004 Warwick and Warwickshire Advertiser - Saturday 03 December 1842

For example, also appearing in the Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser of Saturday 03 December 1842 under the title The late wholesale infanticide in the Forest of Dean, death of Frances Bennett. The murderer of her children.

THE MURDERS AT RUARDEAN. Gloucester, Saturday.— Few occurrences have excited a more painful interest in this quarter than the investigation which terminated in the committal of Frances Bennett from Ruardean, in the Forest of Dean, to the County Gaol in this city, to await her trial at the assizes. The circumstances have been stated, and are shortly these:—Frances Bennett, after the death of her husband, by whom she had several children, lived with man named Yapp, a hauler, the children by marriage having gone to live elsewhere. About a month ago Bennett, under the apprehension that she was about to die, made a disclosure to a clergyman, in the presence of several persons, to the effect that she had had six children by Yapp, but none of them had been allowed to live, she having suffocated them immediately after birth. She told where the remains of the bodies would be found. The latest murder, according to the confession of the woman, was perpetrated about Christmas last year, and the spot which she indicated as containing the remains was found on examination to conceal the most perfect skeleton of any. The truth of this horrid confession having in this way been placed beyond a doubt, information was sent to John Cooke, Esq., one of the County Coroners, who instantly proceeded from Gloucester to Ruardean to institute an investigation. The witnesses examined on the inquest consisted chiefly of persons to whom the woman had made the confession, including the clergyman who had communicated with the Magistrate on the subject, and the person who had found the remains of the bodies. In the course of the examination of the clergyman by the Coroner, it came out that he had had a second interview with the wretched woman, none being present but themselves, and that she had made some additional disclosures. The rev. gentleman, however, on the ground that what he was told upon this occasion was mixed up with his “spiritual” duties, refused to communicate any particulars, although pressed to so by the Coroner. The woman, moreover, began to deny that she had made any such confession as that sworn to by the witnesses; but enough had been proved to justify the Jury in returning a verdict of wilful murder against Bennett and her paramour Yapp. The latter was instantly removed to Gloucester, but the state of Bennett’s health was such as to induce the Coroner to delay the order for her removal till it could be effected without danger.

On the afternoon of Thursday, the 17th instant, the miserable woman arrived at the county gaol in a fly, attended by Mr. Bird, a medical man. She was carried up stairs to the hospital, and on being placed on the bed, said, “Now I will die happy.” She died early on Friday morning. This day (Saturday) an inquest was held on the body, before John Cooke, Esq., the Coroner, who conducted the investigation at Ruardean. Disease had reduced the body to a perfect skeleton, but the appearance of the features was more pleasing than otherwise. Mr. Cooke, who saw the deceased alive about three weeks ago, remarked that her face had undergone little change.

The first witness examined was Elisa Gansmore, one of the nurses attached to the gaol, who stated that she was directed to wait upon deceased shortly after her arrival. Deceased often thanked God that she had been removed, and said that she was much happier in gaol than at home.

The Coroner here stated that a rumour was abroad that the deceased was in the family way, and asked the witness if she could speak to the point?—The witness stated that she asked the question of deceased, and she stated that she was not. Deceased said that she was only 38 years of age.

Maria Nuttal, another nurse, was next examined. She said that she was present when the deceased died on Friday morning, and was with her for some days previous. She asked witness to read and pray to her. Sometimes when she was reading the deceased would say, “Stop; wait till I’m better,” and when she recovered she would ask her to go on. As her death approached she seemed to feel contented. She was sensible to the last. She said that she had been ill for about twelve months.

Mr. Hickes, the surgeon, stated that the complaint of which the deceased died was pulmonary consumption, and, in his opinion, the removal from Ruardean had neither injured nor benefited her. She seemed to be aware that she could survive only for a few days. She mentioned to him and to others that she had been sent to gaol charged with the murder of her children.

The Jury returned a verdict of “Died from natural causes.”

Yapp, on being told of the death of Bennett, wept bitterly. The body was buried the relatives of the deceased.

As to worldly means, the murderers were comfortable. Indeed it is alleged that the only index to their brutal conduct is be found in the circumstance that Bennett’s husband settled his property upon her, but with the restriction that should she marry again the property was to go to his children. It was the desire to retain the property which probably prevented her marriage with Yapp, and every body knows how one crime leads to another.

In reports of Frances Bennett’s confession identifying where the bodies of her children were buried, she identified the rather rather grisly reason why one of the bodies at least would not ever be discovered.

Death of the murderess, December 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000077/18421204/019/0008 Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper - Sunday 04 December 1842

THE CHILD MURDERS IN THE FOREST OF DEAN.-DEATH OF THE MURDERESS.

We last week announced the committal of Frances Bennett to our county gaol on the charge of murdering her six infant children. We have now to record that the doom, the apprehension of which terrified her into the disclosures which made public her unnatural and unparalleled attrocities, has befallen her. She died in the hospital of the county gaol early yesterday morning, after a confinenent of 8 days. Since her admission she had every attention paid to her which her condition required, and her passage to her dread account was, we have reason to believe, no way accelerated by the treatment she received since her reception within the walls of the prison: and she could not have been, so far as professional attention and nursing wore concerned, better, if so well attended at her own home. It was not in the power of human means to restore her to health. Consumption had made fatal ravages on her constitution, and death had set his seal upon her, and she felt she was summoned away, when she uttered those confessions which, from the enormity of the crimes to which they referred, have caused a sensation in every part of the kingdom. Year after year did this remorseless woman consign the children of her body to death; and while the murdered remains were resting under the stones over which her feet were passing day after day, did she keep the horrid secret of her iniquity from the knowledge of all her neighbours, till the summons she received to prepare for her own account awoke the terrors of a conscience which crime had apparently seared from all compunctious warnings. The woman, Frances Bennett, was the widow of a man of that name, who lived at Ruardean-hill, in the Forest of Dean, and who, at his death, left her a little property, with the stipulation that if she married again it should pass from her. Afterwards a man named Thomas Yapp went to live with her; and probably she was deterred from marrying him in consequence of the absurd restrictions of the will. By this man, according to her own confession, she had no less than six children, all of whom she murdered, at or immediately after their birth, and, as she stated, buried there, with Yapp’s assistance, underneath the paving of her back kitchen. None of her neighbours appear to have had any suspicion that during all this time she had once been a mother; till, a few weeks ago, she was taken ill, and fancying it was for death, she made the above confession, and requested that the remains of her children might be dug up, and re-buried in consecrated ground. She described with accuracy the spots where the bodies lay, and in these precise spots they were all found-at least, five of them were so discovered, and we have heard it stated that when she was told that the sixth could not be found, she exclaimed—“Oh, I remember, the pigs eat him!” but of this we cannot speak with any certainty; we believe it was not deposed so before the coroner. Thomas Yapp still remains in custody in the gaol: how the death of his partner will affect his situation we cannot form an opinion; but probably it will be found that this case will be too weak against him to warrant his conviction: of this, however, it is premature to speak at any length. Gloucester Journal.

INQUEST ON THE BODY OF THE MURDERESS.

GLOUCESTER, SATURDAY.-This day an inquest was held on the body, before John Cooke, Esq., the coroner, who conducted the investigation at Ruardean. Disease had reduced the body to a perfect skeleton, but the appearance of the features was more pleasing than otherwise.-Mr. Cooke, who saw the deceased alive about three weeks ago, remarked that her face had undergone little change.—The first witness examinad was Eliza Gansmore, one of the nurses attached to the gaol, who stated that she was directed to wait upon deceased shortly after her arrival. Deceased often thanked God that she had been removed, and said she was much happier in gaol then at home.—The coroner here stated that a rumour was abroad that the deceased was in the family way, and he asked the witness if she could speak to the point.—The witness stated that she asked the question of deceased, and she stated that she was not, Deceased said she was only 38 years of age.—Maria Nuttall, another nurse, was next examined. She said that she was present when the deceased died on Friday morning, and was with her some days previous. She asked witness to read and pray to her. Sometimes when she was reading, the deceased would say, “Stop, wait till I’m better,” and when she recovered, she would ask her to go on. As her death approached, she seemed to feel contented. She was sensible to the last. She said that she bad been ill for about twelve months.—Mr. Hickes, the surgeon, stated that the complaint of which the deceased died was pulmonary consumption, and, in his opinion, the removal from Ruardean had neither injured nor benefited her. She seemed to be aware that she could survive only a few days. She mentioned to him and to others that she had been sent to gaol charged with the murder of her children.— The jury returned a verdict of “Died from natural causes.”—Yapp, on being told of the death of Bennett, wept bitterly. The body was buried by the relatives of the deceased.—As to wordly means, the murderers were comfortable. Indeed, it is alleged that the only index to their brutal conduct is to be found in the circumstances that Bennett’s husband settled his property upon her, but with the restriction mentioned above, that should she marry again the property was to go to his children. It was the desire to retain the property which probably prevented her marriage with Yapp, and everybody knows how one crime leads to another.

The Curate’s Actions Become a Matter of Debate#

As well as the horror demonstrated over the reports of Bennett’s crimes, there was also considerable levels of debate being rasied over the actions of the curate who had taken her confession not once, but twice, and who had refused to relay anything she had disclosed to him that had not already been made public.

Properly maintaining the sanctity of religious confidence, November 1842

https://archive.org/details/sim_illustrated-london-news_1842-11-12_1_27/page/422/mode/2up Illustrated London News 1842-11-12: Vol 1 Iss 27, p. 422 Publication date 1842-11-12

London, Saturday, November 12, 1842

A dreadful case of infanticide has been disclosed during the week, of which the details are almost too revolting to communicate in public print, but they are so far associated with the pecualiar channel of their discovery, that a question quite new to the journalist has been opened up which we are desirous of expressing a brief opinion. The crime, of which we have first to speak, has too dreadfully increased under the operation of the new Poor-law Bill, and the number of child-murders which are of occurrence almost promise to denaturalize the community with continued exhibitions of the violation of that beautiful maternal affection and solicitude which the old moralist characterised as of most absorbing power, and as dwelling with most passionate presence in the mother’s breast. The sin of human nature finds no source of atonement in any mercy of the law, and the despairing wretch who dreads the vengeance of society, while bearing the fruits of shame, dashes the warm blood of motherhood from her heart, and admits into its emptied channels a stream of depravity that rushes through it with the potency of poison, and with all its withering and agonising pain. The child that should be folded up on a responsive bosom is hidden in an unconsecrated grave, and the murderess is either punished for discovered atrocity, or followed by unrelenting remorse. The law that thus admits of the worst crime under heaven being traced to its operation should surely be destoyed, lest it be paraded as an excuse for the enormities that are committed in its dread. The case, however, which is now recorded is too horrible even to bear application to the effect of any human legislation, however cruel or abhorred. It is the periodical murder of six different children by their mother, and their concealment under the earth after death. The facts are as follow:— A woman of the name of Frances Bennett, dangerously ill, and, as she supposed, at the point of death, confessed in agony to her own sister, to a policeman named Fowler, and to the clergyman of the parish, that she had murdered successively no less than six illegitimate children, the offspring of an illicit connection with a man named Yapp, and with him buried them in a place which she pointed out. Search was made, and the skeletons of six infants found; but the woman recovered, and now wishes to disclaim her confession. She and Yapp are in custody, and the case has been once brought before a coroner’s inquest, which was adjourned to the following Wednesday, and of which we shall probably soon communicate the result. Now, it is out of this fearful circumstance that the social question has arisen upon which we are anxious to comment. The clergyman spoken of deposed just as large an amount of evidence as was disclosed by the policeman and the sister of the murderess; but he knew more, and, on being pressed to divulge all he knew, pleaded his spiritual calling, and that the secrets entrusted to him were, as it were, the inviolate confidence of a spirit on its wing from earth. Now, this is an important plea, and a most proper one, unless we greatly misunderstand what is right. The depraved wretch, who may have been saved, perhaps, equally for repentance under divine mercy, as for punishment under divine justice, can hope for no sympathy from the world and society, will doubtless be able, out of the permissible evidence of her confession, to pay her retribution for her crime. But let not the spiritual interpreter of a religion which “urges to the confession of secret sin” be made in the most remote degree the organ of its punishment. The woman was in articulo mortis—she believed her parting confidence to be given to one who might pour on her remorseful soul some ray of mercy to light her spirit out of the world. She was in trust, against all human disclosure, close as in the grave itself, and the dark secret which she uttered should close the lips of her spiritual confidant as close as the grave too. The reverend gentleman has, therefore, properly maintained the sanctity of religious confidence by refusing to disclose it, even in what seems to further the most imperative justice of the law. We hope earnestly to learn that the ends of justice will be furthered in this most lamentable instance of human crime, but not by one syllable uttered by the clergyman who stood at the death-bed of the criminal, with his ear listening at the very door of her soul!

The actions of the curate at Rurardean, December 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18421206/057/0008 Sun (London) - Tuesday 06 December 1842

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—While the Times is alternately exalting and aspersing Bishops, it is seeking to revive one of the worst claims of priestcraft in behalf of “Presbyters”— we mean the claim that auricular confession of criminals is to be held sacred to them. The Rev. Henry Formby, curate of Ruardean, has been backed by the Times in the announced resolution to plagiarise from the Romish Church (in contempt of law) the doctrine that confessions made to him by a dying criminal are sacred from justice. His penitent was a woman who had committed repeated acts of infanticide—it is supposed with an accomplice—and her dying confession Mr. Formby keeps secret. The law recognises no such privileged communication; the State, which upholds church endowments, probably does not uphold them in order to maintain functionaries who aid and abet crime, and comfort criminals by easing their bosom of the perilous stuff, which they are found so often ready to reveal to justice rather than retain uncommunicated. We are now told by the Times, and by the curate of Ruardean, that the State ought to permit the clergy of its choice to receive these confidences, under the seal of confession, and thus, in many cases, intercept them from justice. It is easy to see with what motive a section of the Anglican clergy may desire to snatch this privilege of confession from exclusive enjoyment of the Romish priest. It is a power over weak and guilty minds, useful for priestly purposes. The question is whether it is conducive to religious, moral, or political ones. Whether the intention of the State, in upholding a Protestant clergy, is to revive the doctrine of a power in the Church to absolve delinquents from their human duties, and to defraud human justice of the benefit of their confessions. This has always been held by Protestants the worst relic of priestcraft among Roman Catholics; and the Times has not been the slowest to denounce its supposed effects in Ireland. In those parts of continental Europe which were long the most priest-ridden, and partially are so still, the effects of the practice appear most unequivocally. “When in the South of Europe” (we quote the late esteemed historian, M. de Sismondi), we find all assassins, all thieves, all prostitutes, very scrupulously fulfilling all the observances of religion, we are apt to accuse them of hypocrisy, and to imagine that, by their exterior of Christianity, they have no other object than to deceive those who observe them. This is a mistake; throughout the South of Europe, this refuse of society is bona fide religious. Malefactors becoming numerous, have found, have formed bad priests, who live by their offerings, and who, as they partake the product, are always ready to sell the absolution of crime.

The novel practice of auricular confession the church of England, December 1842

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000425/18421207/026/0004 Cork Examiner - Wednesday 07 December 1842

(From the Morning Chronicle.)

The Rev. Henry Formby, of Ruardean, seems anxious to signalise himself as apostle of the novel practice of auricular confession the church of England. A curious letter, to which his name appended, appeared in yesterday’s Times, reiterating the claim of the clergy to be the sacred depositaries of guilty secrets, and thus accessory to the failure of justice. The article from a correspondent which we published on Wednesday shows that this new Puseyite gospel is bad law, and that confessions to a clergyman are not privileged in a court of justice. The pretension may, nevertheless, do much mischief. Truth cannot always extracted from an unwilling witness, least of all from a man of education and spiritual character, who makes the suppression of the truth and the protection of the culprit point of conscience. Much also may be concealed that would fix the crime upon the prisoner, but which no means exist for eliciting by cross-examination. The clergyman may withhold all clue to the decisive facts in his possession, and look on complacently while judge, jury, and counsel are vainly beating about the bush, satisfied with having raised the English clergyman to an equality with the Romish priest, at the expense of righteous judgment, social protection, and public manners and morals. The Rev. H. Formby writes his letter to explain why he went so far in his communications on the inquest before he stopped short. And his explanation is, that what he then stated was told him by the murderess publicly; the suppressed remainder alone (and it is still, and seems likely to remain, suppressed) being heard by him in his spiritual capacity, the guilty confidence of “a penitent and a parishioner.” This is not exactly the point which a good subject and just citizen would have thought to require explanation. The marvel and the disgust were, not that Mr. Formby should have disclosed so much, but that he should not have disclosed more, when the object at stake was that of ascertaining the guilt of a long series of murders. Society does not require excuse or explanation from a clergyman, or from any body else, for assisting to bring the shedders of human blood within reach of justice. It is for withholding such aid, for claiming a right to withhold, and for varnishing such alleged right with the holy name of religion, that explanation and excuse are required by the common sense of mankind, and the common interests of society.

“My subsequent interviews,” says the curate Ruardean “with the unhappy offender, were strictly those of the clergyman and the penitent, and therefore sacred. If for no other reason, God forbid that I or any other man should seek to pervert a message of Christian mercy to a fellow sinner into an insidious instrument of human condemnation.” We are for nothing “insidious;” but there is no insidiousness in the case, save of Mr. Formby’s making. A murderer’s confession of crime is not privileged to any body except his legal defenders; and even that exception is of very questionable utility. All that can be said of it is that it gives crime a better chance against justice. On behalf of innocence it never can avail. All that it does for innocence is to put it and guilt upon the same level. Still the professional confidence is so far sanctioned by law, custom, and opinion, that its sacrifice, even for the ends of justice, would certainly be to employ an “insidious instrument.” But the avowal to a clergyman is not privileged, either by law, custom or opinion. The clergyman knows, or may know, that it is not; and he ought to warn his “penitent and parishioner” accordingly. He has no right to become the sacred and silent confidant, and thereby in some degree the accomplice of the crime which he withholds from the cognizance of law and justice. The penitent should be told that, whatever heavenly consolation he may gain by confession, he must run the risk of the earthly consequences. The clergyman is not a cistern into which he may disgorge the “perilous stuff that weighs upon the heart,” secure of its not being subjected to the tests of legal analysis. This pretension of the sacredness of confession is an elevating of the relation of clergyman and parishioner, a relation created by the state, above that of the state and its members. It subordinates civil government to a theocracy administered by parish priests.

Such a disturbance of the relative duties of social life is an immorality, and not the only immorality in this case. If the “penitent” be sincere, will he not wish to make the atonement of submission to the violated law? In that event.there is no occasion for the clergyman’s secresy. All secresy is superseded. But suppose the alleged penitent to have no stomach for the judicial consequences of his act. Suppose the penitence to be of that false but frequent sort which likes consolation hugely, and is refreshed by sympathy, but is hard as adamant against the claims of right and justice. Is the hardened wretch to be protected—to be screened in life, and if he dies, his accomplices afterwards, from all the retributory consequences of the evidence contained in his confessions? So seems to think the Rev. Henry Formby. The woman whose confession he received of her horrible and numerous infanticides is dead. She is believed not to have been alone in the series of crimes. The man who lived with her is about to be tried as an accomplice; and in this state of things, the curate of Ruardean publishes to the world that “it is reported further disclosures had been made” to him, but adds that “such a notion, however probable, can, of course, be no more than inferential; for all that is or can be known, it may be without foundation.” Why, the foundation for it has been laid by himself, in his answers to the coroner and in this very letter. Should the man who is about to take his trial be acquitted for want of evidence, what can wash away from his after life the suspicion that perhaps but for the clergyman’s silence he might have been convicted? Or should he be condemned and executed, who can tell but that the woman’s confessions to the clergyman might have mitigated his offence so as to have occasioned the sparing of his life? For we presume that the sacredness of confession tells both ways, and no more to be violated for the deliverance of the innocent, or partly innocent, than for the condemnation of the guilty. If, indeed, exception be made this case, why then the real trial takes place the secret recesses the parson’s mind, and not in an open court of justice. It is astonishing that any sober-minded people should desire to force themselves into the position in which this doctrine of auricular confession will often place the clergy, should it become prevalent. It belongs to an age gone by. It is an offshoot of ecclesiastical claims that are defunct, and generally forgotten, in Protestant countries. Its revival would revive the bitter jealousies and collisions of civil and sacred power that harried society in the middle ages. Its reaction would be felt in scorn, scepticism, and profanity. But Puseyism drives recklessly on, its plan of Romanizing the Anglican Church, and unless Episcopacy be more alert and courageous, seems likely to proceed, inducing fresh disgust at every step of its career, until public opinion be roused emphatically to remind the Church, that this country, is the dependent ally of the State, not its master; and bound to render proportionate services to society for the emoluments received its ministers.

Almost three years later, Rev. Henry Formby’s name appeared in the press again as he resigned his position at Ruardean.

The Rev. Mr. Henry Formby resigns, 1845

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000398/18451231/005/0002 Hereford Journal - Wednesday 31 December 1845

The Rev. Mr. Formby, incumbent of Ruardean, has placed his resignation in the hands of the Lord Bishop of the diocese.—[It will be remembered that the refusal of the reverend gentleman to disclose to the magistrates a confession of guilt which had been made to him, was, some time ago, the subject much remark and discussion.]

It also seems that he had not been alone in resigning, and that he had left the Anglican congergation to join the Roman Catholic church.

Received into the Romish Church, January 1846

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001177/18460131/032/0003 Edinburgh Evening Post and Scottish Standard - Saturday 31 January 1846

Further effects of Puseyism— Birmingham, Sunday.:— I have just received intelligence that the Rev. Formby, rector of Ruardean, in Herefordshire, formerly of Brazenose College, and the Rev. Mr Burder, who had been lately assisting at Ruardean, were received into the Romish Church yesterday evening by Dr. Wiseman. Correspondent of Herald.

Back a Ruardean, a new appointment was rapidly made to fill the vacancy in the perpetual curacy position there.

A new curate is appointed, March 1846

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000187/18460319/013/0003 Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette - Thursday 19 March 1846

On Monday, the 2d of March, instant, the Rev. Theophilus Morgan was licenced by the Lord Bishop of the diocese to the perpetual curacy of Ruardean, in the county of Gloucester, vacant by the resignation of the Rev. Henry Formby, on the nomination of the Rev. Thos. Huntingford, precentor of Hereford Cathedral, and, as such, the Patron.

The Coroner’s Court in the News Again#

Back in 1843, the Coroner’s Court was back in the news, first regarding the an invoice by the Coroner regarding fees he had incurred in respecting of consultancy services commissioned as part of his inquiry:

Consultancy fees at the Coroner’s court? January 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000393/18430107/004/0001 Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 07 January 1843

GLOUCESTERSHIRF, EPIPHANY SESSIONS.

The Sessions commenced on Tuesday. …

The first topic of any interest had reference to an item in the account of Mr. Cooke, coroner, connected with the inquisition taken upon the remains of the murdered infants at Ruardean. It appeared from what was stated by the Rev. Mr. Witts that the coroner’s jury had sat several times* and that Mr. Cooke, owing to the singular and complicated nature of the case had consulted Mr. Bellamy, the Clerk of Assizes, as to certain points, and Mr. Bellamy had considered it necessary that the opinion of Mr. Francillon, barrister at law, should be taken. At the last sitting of the jury save one, a verdict of wilful murder against Frances Bennett, the mother, and against Yapp, the reputed father, as an accessory, was returned, and an adjournment again took place to allow Mr. Francillon to prepare the proper inquisitions. The item in Mr. Cooke’s account, which Mr. Witts objected to, was 4l. 4s. being Mr. Francillon’s charge for professional services. The county presumed, said Mr. Witts, that the coroner was able to discharge his own duties, and that if he required additional assistance he should pay the expence himself. It was also remarked that Mr Cooke had not made any charge for witnesses on the ground that the sums to be allowed (as we understood) were to fixed by Mr. Bellamy. This was looked upon as irregular, but the prevailing opinion was, that this part of the charge might afterwards taken into consideration. Mr. Cooke’s account was ordered to be paid under deduction of 4l. 4s.

Secondly, when Thomas Yapp’s sister was investigated following the death of her child.

Death of an illegitimate child, January 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000393/18430121/032/0003 Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 21 January 1843

Inquest, before John Cooke, Esq.— The atrocities perpetrated by the woman Bennett, and her paramour Yapp, at Ruardean, were vividly brought to mind last week in consequence of a report that a sister of Yapp’s, residing at the same place, had killed her illegitimate child. Information of the rumour was communicated to Mr. Cooke, who held an inquest upon the body, but nothing transpired calculated to criminate the mother in the slightest degree. The child had lived for five weeks, and had been taken care of as well as the wretched circumstances in which the mother was placed, allowed. The Jury returned a verdict of died from natural causes.

An inquest held, January 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000532/18430121/026/0003 Gloucester Journal - Saturday 21 January 1843

The same coroner [John Cooke, Esq.] also held an inquest a few days ago at Ruardean, on the body of an illegitimate female child, about five or six weeks old, the daughter of a single woman named Elizabeth Yapp. The child had died before it was baptised, and application was, as usual, made to the sexton to bury it privately; but in consequence of reports which were current that the child’s death had been occasioned or accelerated by the negligence or misconduct of the mother, burial was refused, and an inquest held. The evidence, however, did not substantiate these reports: the mother, Elizabeth Yapp, was shown to be very poor, and to have made every preparation for the reception and comfort of the infant which it was in her power to do, and death appears to have taken place from natural causes, a verdict to which effect was returned by the jury. The enquiry caused the greater interest, in consequence of the mother being sister to Thomas Yapp, who is now in custody in the county gaol, charged with being accessory to the horrible infanticides perpetrated at Ruardean’s Hill, by the woman Frances Bennett, whose death in the same gaol occurred about two months since, and whose unparalleled enormities excited so much public sensation.

The Trial of Thomas Yapp#

At the Gloucestershire Spring Assizes, the pomp and ceremony of the of the opening of the court sessions are described, and the presiding Judge makes some opening remarks.

An accessory to a crime? April 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000393/18430408/037/0003 Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 08 April 1843

GLOUCESTERSHIHE SPRING ASSIZES. Wednesday last being the day appointed for opening the Commission of Assize for this county, Robert Slayner Holford, Esq., the High Sheriff, arrived in this city from his seat at Weston Birt, and proceeded some mileson the Monmouth road to afford the usual escort to the bearer of her Majesty’s commission. Mr. Wolford’s equipage was of the most brilliant description. The carriage, which was drawn by four horses of remarkable beauty, was richly decorated with silver trimmings on a dark ground; the harness was similarly ornamented, and the coachman and two footmen wore handsome liveries. What added to the imposing appearance of the cavalcade, was the circumstance of the worthy High Sheriff having been met, when a few miles from his estate, by about forty of his tenantry, who formed themselves into procession, and rode in front of the carriage. The javelin men, whose livery was white and blue, headed the cavalcade, and in the order we have indicated, and attended by a large number of citizens, it proceeded along the Monmouth road till Mr. Sergeant Talfourd was met with, the bearer of the royal commission—their Lordships being detained at Monmouth by the pressure of business. On arriving in the city, the Learned Sergeant proceeded to the Shire-hall, when her Majesty’s commission was read. On Thursday morning the learned Judges of Assize arrived, and accompanied by the High Sheriff, went to the Cathedral, where divine service was celebrated and an admirable sermon delivered by the Rev. T. Murray Browne, Canon of Gloucester, Chaplain to the High Sheriff. About one o’clock both courts were opened.—Mr. Justice Wightman presiding in the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice Erskine at Nisi Prius.

THE CROWN COURT.

After the usual formalities had been gone through, the grand juries for the county and city were sworn.

…

His Lordship, in addressing the county grand jury, said —I fear that I cannot congratulate you on the state of the calendar, either as regards the number the prisoners, or the quality of the offences charged. As this, however, is the first time that I have been in Gloucester, I have had no opportunity of comparing this calendar with previous calendars; but from all that I can learn, not only on this circuit, but on every other of which I have heard, there is obviously a great increase in the number of offences. The increase of offences against property may, to some extent, perhaps, be attributed the distress which there is too much reason to believe is and has been severely felt. But there are cases of violence to the person, which are in no respect attributable to any cause arising from the distress to which I have alluded. I am happy to find, however, that in this present calendar the offences against the person properly so called, are, in point of number comparatively small, but individually, there are some of them of most serious character.

I will not propose to go through the calendar in detail, nor does it appear necessary I should, for upon such perusal of the depositions as I have been able to make, I do not find any case which appears to me likely to raise any point of much difficulty to gentlemen of your experience. In the calendar there are three cases of murder, three of manslaughter, five of malicious cutting and stabbing, two of malicious shooting, which may be regarded as an offence against the person in higher degree, and some of sheep stealing, which must be regarded as a serious offence against property. To distinguish murder from manslaughter, it should appear that the injury was inflicted with deliberate intention to cause the fatal result. This intention may be decided either from the nature of the instrument by which the violence was inflicted, or the circumstances attending the infliction. When the injury, however, is inflicted upon a sudden provocation, when a quarrel takes place before hand, and where the person charged cannot be deemed the aggressor, the charge hardly amounts to one of murder. But there are many cases —that of an infant child for instance where no provocation or cause of quarrelling could arise—where the offence cannot be reduced below the crime of murder, and where the only question can be—was the death caused wilfully? I mention these particularly with reference to the charge 34—[Thomas Yapp, charged having been accessary to the wilful murder of several infant children],—where the question will be, whether the deaths were caused by wilful injury, and whether the prisoner was accessary to the crime? With respect to the cases of manslaughter, I may observe generally, that when death ensues in consequence of some violence, the case is one of manslaughter, though the act may have been unpremeditated, and though there was no intention to cause death, or to do any great bodily harm—such, for instance, as in the case of death occurring in a pugilistic encounter. But I am sorry to find in this and other circuits, that the use of cutting instruments on slight and trivial provocation, is on the increase. This practice is foreign to the feelings and habits of the people of this nation, and it ought to be suppressed by carrying the law into full effect. In questions of cutting and stabbing, the extent of the injury is not very important in determining the quality of the crime. The question is, what was the intent? Was it with the intent to do grievous bodily barm, and to seriously maim and injure? In all cases of such intent, the offence is no less than felony. As to the charges of rape, I may remark that such charges are easily mode and not easily answered, in some cases, indeed, it is impossible that they can be answered; and unless the evidence should afford satisfactory ground for the charge, it will be better at ouce to suppress the case, and avoid the obvious evils consequent on the public exhibition of the details.

The character and nature of many of the charges in the calendar is such, that the question of guilt or innocence must depend on circumstances alone; and in cases of this kind, I think your own good sense will the most efficient aid and guide you can have. I have also to remark, that in all the cases which will be brought before you, your province differs from that of the juries who try the prisoners, and who give the prisoners the benefit of any doubt which may arise. You ought to find a bill, if the evidence presen a prima facie case against the prisoner. You are not to try the case, but send it for trial.

I cannot, however, conclude without making one remark, and it is, that out of the 110 prisoners whose names were in the calendar when I first saw it, I found that 100 of them could neither read nor write, or at best but imperfectly. This calendar and all experience shows that no human laws, however carefully administered, will prove effectual for the prevention of crime. The only effectual mode must by the general diffusion of moral and religious feelings throughout the country, and more especially amongst those who are most exposed to evil influences, I mean the poorer classes; and this only can be done by increasing the means of education and religious knowledge. To you who are of rank and station and fortune in the county, I need hardly recommend increased exertion. I am sure your own feelings, as well as your own interest, if I may use the expression, will be a sufficient inducement to you to discharge your duty with redoubled diligence.

His Lordship, in addressing the city grand jury, said he was happy to find that the observations he had made as to the county calendar, was hardly applicable to that of the city. He had found only six cases and eight prisoners, and in no case did he think any difficulty would occur; and he would not consequently detain them.

The county grand jury haviug returned a number of true bills, the court proceeded to

THE TRIALS

…

As to the case itself, the death of Frances Bennett had changed the complection of the case insofar as it was possible to make a case against Thomas Yapp without being able to call on Frances Yapp, or, presumablay, develop any further evidence from the priest she had confessed to, and so the charges against Yapp were dropped.

In the case of the child murders at Ruardean, April 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000311/18430420/020/0004 Cheltenham Chronicle - Thursday 20 April 1843

GLOUCESTER SPRING ASSIZES. (Continued from last week’s Paper.) CROWN COURT. Wednesday, April 12. Child Murders at Ruardean. Thomas Yapp, aged 34. charged on the coroner’s inquisition with having been accessory to the wilful murder of several infant children, under circumstances already well known, was discharged. Mr. Francillon, on behalf of the prosecution, stated that after an anxious consideration of the case he had resolved not to offer evidence.

(Not) developing the “horrible”, April 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000401/18430421/008/0002 Shrewsbury Chronicle - Friday 21 April 1843

Gloucester Assizes.— … In the case of Yapp, the paramour of Frances Bennett, the woman who, under the tortures of a guilty conscience, confessed that she had murdered six of their infants, it was expected that much of the “horrible” would have been developed. The death, however, of the woman had changed the aspect of the case as regarded the accessory, and the able lawyer who was entrusted with the prosecution resolved to abandon the case. The prisoner was consequently discharged.

The changing aspect of the case, April 1843

https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000393/18430415/025/0002 Gloucestershire Chronicle - Saturday 15 April 1843

THE ASSIZES. The Assizes for this county have already occupied eight days; and it is expected that the business will be brought to a close today.

…. In the case of Yapp, the paramour of Frances Bennett, the woman who, under the tortures of a guilty conscience, confessed that she had murdered six of their infants, it was expected that much of the “horrible” would have been developed. The death, however, of the woman had changed the aspect of the case as regarded the accessary, and the able lawyer who was entrusted with the prosecution resolved to abandon the case. Yapp, who stated to be thirty-four years of age, did not appear to have suffered by imprisonment in any respect. He was dressed as a labourer of the better class, and when standing at the bar awaiting his “deliverance,” he surveyed the court-room very minutely and deliberately.

And there the tale ends…