William Yarrow was born in Stilton c1786. He was a shoemaker when he married Eleanor “Ellen” Jones on 4 July 1808, Stilton. Their first child, William, died in infancy and was buried 20 January 1809, Stilton. On 24 September 1810, William and Ellen’s second child, Sarah, was baptised. Other children were also baptised in Stilton over the next few years: Ann - 3 January 1813, John - 10 September 1814 (d: 1901), Harriet - 10 November 1816, Charles - 6 January 1819 (d: 1894) and James - 26 February 1821.

In 1837, William and Ellen’s daughter, Harriet, gave birth to an illegitimate son, George.

Ann married Joseph Rowell, a groom from Folksworth, on 11 March 1839, Stanground and they had three children. The family were living next to Eynesbury Rectory, St Neots in 1861 and 1871 with both Joseph (gardener) and Ann (dairywomen) working at the Rectory. Joseph died 5 July 1874 and in 1881 Ann (68) had two grandsons living with her.

In 1841, William (54), Shoeman is living with Ellen (56) and children: John (26), Harriet (24), Charles (22) and James (20) along with Harriet’s illegitimate son, George (4), in Stilton.

John Yarrow, an agricultural labourer married Mary Dilly Q3 1843 and had three children; John (1845), William (1848) and Harriet D (1850). In 1851 the family are living in Church Street but by 1861, they had moved to High Street Stilton and had two more children; Sarah (1852) and George (1854). Mary was 83 when she died Q4 1897 and John 87 when he died Q3 1901.

Charles Yarrow married Mary Watford in Q2 1844 (registered Huntingdon). By 1851, Charles (32), was an agricultural labourer living with Mary (32) and son, Stephen (3) in Fen Street. They lost their daughter, Sarah Ann Yarrow (b: Q1 1846) aged 4, buried 1 February 1850, Stilton and their son, John Watford Yarrow (b: Q1 1850 Peterborough) buried on 16 September 1850 aged 7 months. Mary died aged 35 and was buried on 29 April 1855 followed by her infant son, David Watford Yarrow on 21 May 1855. Charles married Ann Elizabeth Watford Q2 1857, St Neots and their first child, Emily Ada was born in Stilton Q1 1858 followed by Annie Elizabeth who was recorded as an infant when she was buried on 6 September 1859, Stilton. A son, Algernon was born in 1861. Ann died aged 31 and was buried on 23 April 1862 in Stilton. Charles married his third wife, Angelina Tebbutt on 27 November 1864 and they had two children. In 1881 Charles, an agricultural labourer and Angelica are living on High Street with Algenon (20) and Ann (13). 1891 Charles and Angelina are living in High Street, Stilton, two doors from the Talbot. Charles is listed as a ‘Pauper’. Charles died Q3 1894 aged 74 followed by Angelina Q4 1894 aged 71.

James Yarrow married Mary Monk on 12^th May 1845 in Warmington. Their first child, David died an infant and was buried on 26 March 1846 St Mary, Stilton. The following year their daughter Fanny “Rachel” was born followed by Sarah two years later. In 1851 James, 29, was an agricultural labourer living with his young family on North Street. Eli born Q4 1851, became a Railway employee and moved to Shropshire. Rachel died in 1864 aged 16 and was buried in St Mary’s Stilton on 7 March. Mary died in 1888 aged 65 and by 1891 James was living at No 5 Alms Houses on Fen Street where he stayed until he died Q4 1904 aged 83.

Harriet Yarrow met Charles Burton (b: 1803 Yaxley) and they married Q2 1844 (registered Peterborough), settling down to family life in Stilton. In 1841, Charles is living in Farcet, an agricultural labourer living in the home of Thomas Maddison, 41, a publican, and his wife Margaret, 30, and their family on High Street.

It is not known if George, Harriet’s son lived with Harriet and Charles after they married. Their first child together, Ellen (Q4 1844 Peterborough) died in infancy and was buried in St Mary’s, Stilton, on 16 March 1845. Harriet and Charles’ second child, Mary Ann was born in 1846 (Q2 1846 Peterborough). Just before 4am on 29 May 1848, Charles murdered Harriet (32) and their young daughter Mary Ann (2) in their home, and then attempted to take his own life. Charles made a Will on 31^st May while in custody ‘leaving the whole of his property to his son George, who was absent from home at the time the fatal deed was committed.’ Harriet and Mary Ann were buried together in Stilton Churchyard.

 

Lincolnshire Chronicle – Friday 2 June 1848

ATROCIOUS DOUBLE MURDER and ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.

Early on Monday morning last, the usually quiet village of Stilton, which is situated between Peterborough and Huntingdon and about six miles from the former place, was thrown into a state of the greatest consternation and alarm by a report—a report which unhappily proved too true—that a man named Charles Burton had murdered his wife and only child, a female two years of age, by cutting their throats. The perpetrator of these foul deeds, who gained a livelihood by collecting rags and bones in the surrounding villages and selling them at Peterborough, was of a rather unprepossessing personal appearance, and although of a reserved and uncommunicative disposition, he has generally been considered a quiet, inoffensive, man, and of steady and industrious habits. The deceased, who was lame, was a native of Stilton, and her parents still reside in the village. Some months ago, a relative—we believe an aunt—bequeathed to Burton some little property; but unfortunately, the prospect of receiving this legacy, of which, owing to some cause, he has not yet come into possession, appears to have checked his habits of industry, and lately he has been very badly off—indeed an apprehensiveness that his wife and child would come to want seems to have suggested the commission of the horrid deed. However, at present, there is the absence of any other motive, for he appears to have lived on the best of terms with deceased, and neither before nor since the murders has evinced symptoms a “mind diseased."

The circumstances under which this atrocious double murder was committed, detailed at length before the coroner, are shortly these:- About four o'clock on Monday morning, Mr. and Mrs. Howes, who live next door to the deceased, were awoke by a loud noise, which they supposed to proceed from the street. Mrs. Howes immediately got up, opened the window, and looking out, saw the deceased at the adjoining window bleeding profusely from the throat; deceased called out—" My good woman, he's killed me and my child—he's cut our throats.” Mrs. Howes and her husband at once ran down stairs, and Burton's door being locked, they went in search, of assistance, and shortly afterwards, with the constable and deceased's parents, gained admission. Burton was then standing with his back to the fireplace— his hands folded, and shirt covered with blood, which was profusely flowing from wounds in his throat. They then went upstairs, and found deceased stretched on the floor a pool of-blood—her throat cut several places— and quite dead. The child was lying on the bed lifeless, and near it a razor, covered with blood. On the previous Saturday morning, Burton left a razor with the village barber for the purpose of being ground and set, stating that he wanted to shave a lodger who had very strong beard, and requesting that it should be made quite sharp. Now Burton had lodger, and there can be little doubt but he contemplated committing this horrid deed on the Saturday. The particulars will be found detailed at length in the subjoined report of the evidence adduced at

THE CORONER'S INQUEST,

which was held on Monday evening, at the Angel inn, before T. C. Atkinson, Esq., of Peterborough, and a respectable jury. After viewing the bodies, the following witnesses were examined:—

Robert Howes, wheelwright, of Stilton, deposed,— l live next door to the deceased, and have known her and her husband well for twelve months; they seemed to live happily together—l never heard a cross word pass between them; Saturday night last, I saw deceased and her husband standing by the front door in conversation about eight o'clock; had some conversation with deceased, and went to bed about nine o'clock. A little before four this morning, I was awoken by a loud scream; I and my wife immediately got up, and she went and put her head out of the window; I heard deceased call out "murder” and say to my wife, " My good woman he's killed me and the child —he's cut our throats." I and my wife immediately went down stairs, and tried the door of deceased's house, which was locked—there appeared to be no noise at the time in the house; I then went to William Yarrow and his wife (the father and mother of deceased) to call them up, and then to Lenton, the constable, to call him; I told them what had happened; I then went for ladder to get into the chamber window, but on my return the door was open, and I saw Charles Burton standing inside the back door. I then went for Mr. Nicholson, the surgeon, who came in few minutes to deceased's house; I followed him upstairs, when I saw deceased lying on the floor with her throat dreadfully cut, and quite dead; I think it was impossible for anybody to have got into the house between the time when deceased called out " murder” and getting to the front door, which was not more than three minutes.

Virtue Howes (wife of the last witness) deposed,—Deceased and her husband appeared to live very happily together; I never heard them quarrel, or have any angry words; I awoke this morning about a quarter before four o'clock, by loud scream, upon which I got out of bed and went to the window; I saw the deceased with her head out of the window, and heard her screaming out, and saying—" My good woman he's killed me and my child—he's cut our throats;" I went for the constable, and we both returned to deceased's house together; deceased had no lodger in the house ; I went upstairs and saw deceased with her throat cut—she was quite dead and not lying on the floor; the deceased’s husband collected rags and bones – he appeared to be a very quiet man, and was not addicted to drink since I have known him.

John Frederick Nicholson, surgeon, Stilton, deposed - was called into Charles Burton's house about half-past four o'clock; morning, when got there I found him standing in the front room by the fire place, with his hands folded, and looking upon the ground: perceiving a deep wound his throat, examined him to see whether any important vessels were bleeding, and finding none, went stairs, where I saw Mrs. Burton lying on the floor, with her feet towards the window and her head towards the stairs; life was extinct, owing to a deep wound on the throat there was a large pool of blood on the floor ; there is no doubt my mind that deceased died from the effects of these wounds; I then went downstairs; Charles Burton was still standing by the fire place, and I examined the wounds his throat, which were deep and extended to the larynx; several muscles were partly divided, but none the important vessels were wounded; I said to him immediately saw him Good God, why have you done this? He made no reply, but looked hard at me; I then asked him whether he and his wife had quarrelled, when he attempted to speak but could not articulate, owing to the wounds; he shook his head, conveying to mind clearly the impression that they had not quarrelled; I then said, “You have had some troubles," and he intimated that he had by a nod of assent; half an hour afterwards the deceased and her daughter were removed downstairs to the lower room, where Burton still remained sitting in a chair; he was then helped up to bed, being extremely faint; drops of perspiration were standing on his face, owing, in a great measure, to loss of blood; he did not show any symptoms of grief or remorse ; I left the house about half-past five o'clock, and returned about half past eight, leaving my assistant to attend him; when returned I put the same question to him as before, and he said, in a suppressed tone of voice, but sufficiently distinct for me to understand him—" I passed a very restless night, and trouble made me do it;" he then said, in reply to a question from me, that his wife was partly asleep when her throat was cut; I asked him why he had murdered his wife, and he replied that when he was gone she might not be left want; I then said, " You must have wounded your wife twice;" he replied, " Yes—while she was at the window I murdered the child ; directly after I took my wife my arms—she struggled, and while she was struggling I inflicted another wound, and she died my arms;" it would have been impossible for deceased to have made the shriek she is represented to have made if the great vessels of the neck had been divided before she got to the window; I have attended Charles Burton and his wife for the last five years, and never observed anything particular in his manner or behaviour to excite my suspicion that he would have committed so rash a deed; I have always thought he behaved kindly to his wife; I have examined the wounds on deceased's throat, there are three distinct wounds, extending from the back part of the neck and round the front, so that only about one-third of the neck is left undivided; the carotid artery and the jugular vein on the right side are both cut through, and instant death must have-ensued ; the immediate cause of death was dividing of the carotid artery and jugular vein, the wound was from eight to nine inches long, and the soft part completely divided to the spine, and from two three inches deep; found the razor now produced on the bed and in the same state it is now; gave it to the constable Lenton.

Isaac Martin, hairdresser, of Stilton, deposed—Charles Burton came to shop on Saturday morning, between nine and ten o'clock, to he shaved, and he left a razor with me to be ground and set; between four and five in the afternoon he came again, and said wanted the razor to shave another person—or lodger, I cannot say positively which ; he said it was strong beard; I gave him the razor, and said—" If after you have shaved the man you will bring it to me again, I will strap it again and make it sharp;" he took the razor away; before it was sharpened it was in a very bad state, and totally unfit for use, being notched ; the razor now produced is the same which he brought to me on Saturday; I never sharpened a razor for him before, and did not know he had one.

George Lenton, wheelwright, Stilton, I am a constable of Stilton, and live two doors from deceased ; I was called up a little before four, this morning by Robert Howes, to go to Charles Burton’s house, and went there in the course of ten minutes; I found the front door open, and Charles Burton standing in the lower room his shirt; I asked him what he had been doing, but he made no answer; I then went upstairs and found deceased lying on the floor with her throat cut; there was a great deal of blood on the floor; I received the razor now produced from Mr Nicolson – it has been in my possession ever since; I never knew deceased to have a lodger in the house; I do not believe that Burton ever shaved people in his house.

The evidence having been gone through, the coroner directed the jury, who immediately found a verdict of Wilful against Charles Burton.

The coroner then proceeded to hold a second inquest on the body of the child—the evidence, of course, was very similar to that given above, and the result of the enquiry was another verdict of Wilful Murder.

The prisoner remains in a very weak state when sufficiently recovered will be removed to Huntingdon, to take his trial at the ensuing assizes.

The deceased—mother and child in the same coffin – were interred on Tuesday afternoon in the presence of a great number of spectators.

***************************************************************

Cambridge Chronicle and Journal – Saturday 22 July 1848

WILFUL MURDER AT STILTON.

Charles Burton, 45, dealer in rags, was placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of Harriet, his wife, and also with the wilful murder of Mary Ann Burton, his daughter. Mr. Wells prosecuted, and Mr. Couch defended the prisoner.

The first -witness called was Virtue Howes, who gave her evidence as follows: I live at Stilton, and have known the prisoner at the bar for three or four years: I knew his wife. I live in the next house, and remember the 28th of May; went to bed at nine o'clock. I saw the prisoner between eight and nine, against his own house. (Here, owing to the noise from the crowd, his lordship ordered all persons to be turned out who could not sit.) —Prisoner was standing with his wife; I spoke to him two or three times; his wife and I talked about the child not being well. I do not remember what the prisoner said; he spoke two or three times. About four o'clock in the morning I heard a loud scream which woke us, and upon looking out of the window I saw Mrs. Burton (deceased) looking out of her own window, which is not more than three or four yards from mine. She said, "my good woman, he has killed me and my child; he has cut our throats." I went down stairs and called up Lenton, the constable, and then went to prisoner's house; I saw him standing with his back to the back door, and his face to the front. I went upstairs and found Mr. Nicholson, the surgeon, and Mrs. Yarrow, mother deceased, up there, and saw deceased quite dead, lying on the floor with her throat cut.

Cross-examined by Mr. Couch:- The age of the child was two years. Prisoner and his wife appeared to live on very good terms. I saw the prisoner standing down stairs. We cannot hear in our house what passes in theirs.

By his Lordship:- They had no lodger in the house. I believe prisoner was not addicted to drinking: I did not perceive any signs of madness about him.

Robert Howes, husband of the last witness: —I saw the prisoner about half-past seven, at his back door; we conversed together about common-place things. I have been in the habit of talking to him. and did not remark anything different in his conduct. The last time I saw him was Sunday evening, about half-past eight, at his front door, with his wife and my wife; I do not know whether prisoner joined in conversation or not. I went to bed about nine, and awoke by hearing a loud scream; I got up and heard the deceased call " murder." I went and tried prisoner's door and finding it fastened I rattled it, and then went to Wm Yarrow, father of the deceased, who lives not quite 100 yards from prisoner. I also went and called the constable, and then went to a bricklayer to get a ladder: when I returned, I found the prisoner's door open. I saw prisoner with his face to me; it was quite light. I went and called the surgeon. The prisoner was standing upright with his arms folded, with only his shirt and night-cap on. The surgeon got up ; I went back and waited for him. The prisoner was against the fire-place, standing. I went upstairs, and found deceased with her throat cut, lying on the floor; my wife was up there; I stopped two or three minutes.

Cross-examined:— l tried the front door, not the back. Lenton, the constable, went to the house while I was getting the ladder; I did not see that it had been forced open. Prisoner seemed to be very fond of his child, and behaved very well to his wife. He used to collect bones and rags; he collected them the week before.

By his Lordship:—l never perceived anything strange in his behaviour.

John Frederick Nicholson:- I am a surgeon, at Stilton. I was called up early on the morning in question, and went to the prisoner's house, and saw him. I have known the prisoner for several years. I did not speak at first; he was bleeding from a wound in the throat, and was standing near the fire-place. I looked at prisoner's wound and found it was not fatal; and then went upstairs and saw no living person, but found his wife lying on the floor, with a most extraordinary wound on her throat, or rather three wounds. There was one on the left side of the neck, which reached to the spine; there was a larger one the right side of the neck, dividing all the vessels, about nine inches in length, and very deep; there was also a jagged one on the left side, which was evidently made another time: one wound was down the throat, the other across. I looked round, and then went down stairs to the prisoner, who was the same place he was at first. I spoke to him and said, "good God, Burton, what made you do this?" he made no reply, but looked hard at me; he was very much exhausted, but able to stand. I spoke to him again, and said " have you and your wife quarrelled?" Prisoner could not articulate, but by nod of the head he led me to understand that he had not; at the same time, he tried to speak, and appeared to understand me. I spoke again, “have you been in trouble?" He led me to suppose he had. I think I did not speak again. I again went upstairs and found the bed and carpets all blood, and a razor covered with blood between the sheets. I superintended the removal of the bodies down stairs; the prisoner was still in the same place. I did not speak then. I had him removed to bed, and left him in charge of my assistant. The deceased could not walk after receiving the wound on the right side of the neck, but could do so after receiving the one on the left side; the wound on the right cut through the carotid artery. I saw the prisoner two or three times that day; in the evening I asked him why he killed his wife and child? Prisoner appeared to show no signs of remorse, and did not shed any tears, or show any signs of any particular excitement. He said, " trouble made him do it." I asked him why he took away the life of others because he was in trouble? He said " because they might not be in want when I am gone." I asked him when he first thought of committing suicide? He said he had thought about it for a week past. I asked when he first thought of murdering his wife? He said at the moment when he first got out of bed to murder himself. I asked him why he had had the razor prepared? He said that was for himself, as he never thought of killing his wife and child till he got out of bed. I asked him if he had been unwell of late? He said he had suffered from head-ache, and had passed several sleepless nights. Prisoner said he tried to murder his wife more than once, and while she was asleep, he made the wound on the left side, and then she got out of bed and went to the window and cried "murder." Prisoner then took her in his arms, and made the other wounds; deceased struggled and resisted; there were several small wounds on her fingers. Prisoner then said he attempted to commit suicide. I asked him if he thought the wound would kill him? He said he was aware it would not. I then said, " why did you stop and not finish murdering yourself?" He said he had not power to finish it.

Cross-examined: - The wound on the prisoner was a severe one; it is easier for a person to inflict a severer wound on another person than on himself; the razor was blunt at the point; it would easily have destroyed himself if he had been willing. I have repeatedly read of cases where, when a person has an instrument in his hands, a sudden impulse has caused him to use it for another purpose than what he intended; a case of that sort would be homicidal insanity. I cannot say that there is any connexion between suicidal and homicidal insanity. It induced an idea in my mind that at the moment he was not able to control his conduct. There is an uncontrollable impulse which is possible for a person to have. I think an idea that your family would be want after your death would bring on case of insanity.

By Mr. Wells :—I do think it would be more natural for person who had been thinking of committing suicide for a week to kill a person, than for another who had not been thinking of it.

By his Lordship: —I never discovered that the prisoner laboured under a delusion at any time. I was well acquainted with him. I should suppose that in this case a feeling that he would be reduced to a state of want would bring on a state of insanity. I asked prisoner if his wife did not reproach him after his first attempt; he said she did. I said " did that not make you stop?" he said "no” the feeling was so strong upon him. I believe that at the moment he committed the deed, he was of unsound mind. He did not appear sorry for what had done till the second day, when he said he knew he should die an ignominious death.

William Martin, hair-dresser, deposed to the prisoner having brought a razor to him to be set, which was here produced in Court, covered with blood.

Lenton, the constable, was the next witness, who corroborated the evidence of the first witnesses.

Mr. Couch then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commented at great length on that part of the evidence of the surgeon where he said was of opinion that the prisoner was not sane at the time he committed the deed. The learned counsel said that in all cases of murder there was generally some motive adduced why the accused committed the crime; but in this case there was none beyond the fear of poverty. Mr. Couch then called

Mr. Gaches, a solicitor, who stated that a legacy had been left to the prisoner, consisting of the fourth part of £700.; but that the trustee, instead of investing it in some safe stock, had invested it in his own stock-in-trade, and that the trustee was in a state of insolvency. When witness told this to prisoner, it had a wonderful effect on his mind.

His Lordship then summed up, and said there were two questions for the jury to decide— first, whether the wounds on the deceased were inflicted by the prisoner; secondly, whether the prisoner was in a sound state of mind when did the deed. Upon the first question there did not rest a single doubt, and upon the second his lordship thought it necessary to make few remarks, and then read to the jury the answers given by all the judges to some questions given to them by the House of Lords, one of which was " that every man is presumed to be sane unless it is proved to the jury to the contrary." It had been said by the surgeons during the present century that a person may be seized with a species of monomania, and commit act without being conscious what he is doing; but that reason might be given for every act committed in moments of passion or intemperance, and if allowed to prevail as a plea for guilt might lead to the most serious consequences, as the greatest crimes might be committed under its sanction. His Lordship then recapitulated the whole of the surgeon's evidence, and commented upon it as he went along, and then left the case to the jury to give a conscientious verdict, which he had no doubt they would do to the satisfaction of the public at large.

The jury expressed a wish to retire, which they did, and, after lapse of about forty minutes, returned into court, when the foreman said they considered that the plea of insanity had not been proved, and therefore they found the prisoner guilty of wilful murder.

His Lordship then put on the black cap, and told the prisoner that the jury, after a calm deliberation, had returned a verdict of guilty against him, and that it was his painful duty to pass the sentence of the law upon him; and he hoped that, during the few days be had to remain, he, with the assistance of the chaplain, would endeavour to obtain mercy from the Lord of all mercies. His Lordship then passed the awful sentence of death in the usual manner, holding out no hope of pardon to the prisoner.

The prisoner, who was accommodated with a chair, appeared very sullen, and scarcely moved the whole time; but when he stood up to receive his sentence, he rested his arm on the dock, and hid his face with his handkerchief.

Cambridge Independent Press – Saturday 17 March 1849

Huntingdonshire Lent Assizes - The Stilton Murders

 

Charles Burton (45), described as a dealer in rags, was then placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of his child, Mary Ann Burton, at Stilton on the 29^th of May 1848. The prisoner, at the last summer assizes, had been found guilty of the murder of his wife, and left for execution; but circumstances subsequently transferring to induce a belief that the prisoner was insane when he murdered his wife and daughter, execution was respited until the 6^th of April next, to afford an opportunity of trying him on the second indictment for the murder of his child, and thus establishing the fact of insanity, if it existed.

 

 

The following gentlemen were sworn of the petit jury:-

Mr George Allen, foreman St Ives

Mr C Atkinson, Eynesbury

Mr Geo. Bedford, Abbots Ripton

Mr Geo. Ekins, Warboys

Mr W Ekins, Pidley-cum-Fenton

Mr E Fyson, Woodhurst

Mr F Fyson, Woodhurst

Mr G Halls, Woodhurst

Mr W Grenwell, Hemingford

Mr G Infield, Hemingford

Mr J Lenton, Abbotsley

Mr W Lenton, Abbotsley

The prisoner having pleased “Not Guilty”

Mr Wells stated the case for the prosecution in a long and lucid speech, in which he particularly dwelt upon the motives by which murderers were actuated in their crime. In the present case the act was attributed to the pecuniary losses of the prisoner, he having stated to Mr Nicolson that he had committed the acts to prevent his wife and child suffering from want when he was no more. But the case of the prisoner was not singular, but unfortunately of common occurrence; children being destroyed by their mothers for fear, as they said, of distress. He would call, also their attention to a medical work published by Dr Pritchard, which treated upon unsoundness of mind, written, he might say, in unprofessional language. In the work in question, Dr Forbes, the editor, states his views on the subject. He says, “There cannot be insanity without delusion; or, as it is otherwise expressed by physicians, without illusion or hallucination; that is, without some particular erroneous conviction, impressed upon the understanding, the affected person being otherwise in possession of full and undisturbed use of his mental faculties.” Mr. Wells then quoted from the same work, the observation made by the Solicitor-General, on the trial of Frances for shooting at the Queen, relative to “men never committing crimes without some motive.” Upon the question of motive the Solicitor-General says:-

“This doctrine about motive is of a most dangerous character and must be very guardedly received. It is very difficult for you (the jury), very difficult for any well-regulated minds, not accustomed to contemplate the workings of iniquity, to discover the motives for crime. What motive instigated the execrable assassin of Paris, who shot at his King, and deluged the streets with blood by means of his internal machine? Did you ever hear pro pounded in a Court of Justice a doctrine that would lead to such dangerous consequences to society as, that you must ascertain the motive before you convict of the crime?”

He (Mr Wells) then argued that the jury must be satisfied of the prisoner’s insanity from delusion. He then adverted to the public press, stating that through its medium attempts had been improperly made to influence their minds with regard to this case. Appeals had, through the press, been made to their sympathy, and observations and testimony given which ought never to have been indulged in. It was for them (the jury), to give their verdict upon the evidence and to dismiss at once from their minds all the observations they had heard out of that Court. Mr Wells then called

Robert Howes: I live at Stilton; I know the prisoner. I resided next door to him, at Stilton. I remember the 28^th of May last year; I saw him that day about eight in the evening, he was standing at his front door; his wife was with him; we had a little general conversation together, and I went to bed about nine; on the following morning I was awoke by a loud screaming; I went to Burton’s door, which I found fastened; I then went to the prisoner’s wife’s father, and to other persons; we returned; when we entered the house the prisoner’s wife and child were both on the bed dead.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Malley: The prisoner always appeared remarkably fond of his wife and child; he used to carry his child about with him a good deal. He was bleeding freely from the throat when I first saw him.

Virtue Howes: I was with my husband on the evening of the 28^th of May, when we stood talking to the prisoner and his wife; the next morning I was awoke by a screaming. Mrs Burton was at the window, and said her husband was murdering her by cutting her throat; I saw Burton soon after this, he appeared as usual.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Malley: I don’t know that he appeared indifferent. He seemed to know what I said: he did not seem careless that I know of: he did not take much notice about it; he always seemed to me to be very fond of his child. – The constable here said: Mr Lord, “here is the bill of my expenses for the last trial of Burton and which I have not been paid yet.

The Judge: Set down, man; and don’t interrupt this important trial with the introduction of your claims for expenses.

Isaac Martin: I live at Stilton. I saw the prisoner on the 27^th of May last; he called at my shop to be shaved; he appeared to me to be as usual; he left a razor to be sharpened, saying, “do this up, I want it to-day for I am going to Peterborough, and will call for it as I come back.” He came for it at five o’clock, and paid me 3d., and left. I asked him if the razor was for a strong beard, as I knew he did not shave himself. I understood him to say that it was for a lodger. I had known him five months before this.

By Mr O’Malley: He had the child with him when he came to my shop to be shaved.

Mr Nicolson, surgeon of Stilton: On the 29^th of May I went to the prisoner’s house. He was standing by the fire-place. I did not speak to him then: I went upstairs, and found mother and child dead, with their throats cut; I came down, and found the prisoner still standing by the fire-side, with some neighbours. I examined his throat, and there was a deep wound and a jagged wound. I said “Good God, Burton! What have you done?” He made no answer. I asked him if he and his wife had quarrelled. He could not articulate, on account of his wounds, but by a motion of his head he signified that he had not quarrelled. I asked him if he had been in trouble, and he nodded his head, thereby intimating that he had been troubled. I attended to his wound, and had him removed to bed. I helped him in bed, and said no more to him then. I left my assistant with him, and returned in an hour or two. I then asked why he did it. He seemed in a moody, melancholy, and depressed state of mind: but gave no direct answer. I asked him a second time, and he answered – “trouble made me do it.” I asked him when he first thought of destroying his wife and child. He replied, only at the moment when he got out of bed to destroy himself; that he had the razor sharpened, intending self-destruction; that he had been contemplating this for a week. He then related the whole occurrence. I first asked him if he had had any headaches. He said yes; that he had passed several sleepless nights; he had not been able to sleep that night. He got out of bed to destroy himself and then the thought came across him that his wife and child would be in want when he was gone; that he instantly attempted to cut his wife’s throat; she was half asleep at the time; she jumped out of bed, ran to th window, and shrieked out “Murder” and while she was at the window, he cut the child’s throat; he then went to her, a struggle ensued, he caught her in his arms, and pulling her back, inflicted another wound, which destroyed her, and immediately afterwards he tried to kill himself. He made several attempts, but had no power to carry them out.

By Mr O’Malley: I have paid the subject of insanity a good deal of attention, and have had 10 years’ practice; my opinion is that the prisoner was in an unsound state of mind at the time he committed the deed; madness of that kind often develops itself very suddenly; a man, by a flow of blood, might then regain his senses; the pressure on his brain would be relieved. There are a great variety of cases of insanity of this kind. When I first went in the house, he remained in one position for a long time; he never changed it till I requested him to sit down. It was necessity to remove the dead bodies from the bed room to place him I the bed, during which time he manifested great apathy to the scene around him; I should say he exhibited insensibility. The irritation of the brain is often preceded by symptoms of sleepless nights, which is also aggravated by a recumbent position. I believe the prisoner had suffered depression of spirits, arising from disappointment of money and not from distress; I saw money and provision in his house. I had attended him, his wife and family, for years; he was very humane, and anxious at all times that his wife and child should have every attention I could afford.

By the Judge: My opinion still remains that Burton was of unsound mind when he committed the acts. His conversation with me shortly afterwards did not show any symptoms of insanity directly; His conversation was perfectly rational; he betrayed no apparent delusion. The loss of blood he experienced would relieve his excitement, and any paroxysm of mania.

Re-examined: No artery of importance was wounded.

By the Judge: His night-shirt was saturated with blood. He must have lost several ounces.

Re-examined: I ever discovered that he was labouring under any affliction of the brain before.

At the close of this witness’s evidence, a conversation took place between the learned Judge and Messrs. O’Malley and Wells. Mr O’Malley submitted that, after Mr Nicholson’s evidence there was no need of proceeding further in the case; the only witness who knew anything of the matter had been heard, and his evidence was conclusive. If he were to be called on to address the jury, and to call witnesses, so as to give his learned friend a reply, and the opportunity of calling witnesses, he should, with the prisoner’s life I his hands, be placed in a most painful position. After some further remarks, and Mr Wells saying he should not call witnesses in reply,

Mr O’Malley addressed the jury. He said he felt himself placed in a painful and anomalous position. If this were the first time the prisoner had been tried for this offence of murder, there was scarcely one in the profession to which he had the honour to belong, but would say that he was not perfectly justified in asking for a verdict of acquittal, so far as the case had proceeded. They had had before them the testimony of a medical gentleman, and withal a most intelligent man, and who had given his evidence in a very clear and intelligible manner: who gave them his unqualified opinion that the prisoner was labouring under insanity when he committed the crim. It was all very well for his learned friend to adduce his medical work, and to quote from advocates of distinction, but he (Mr O’Malley) would ask them if, as men and as Christians, they could take away by their verdict human life, after the testimony of the medical evidence they had heard that day? Could they justify themselves for a verdict of guilty, after Mr Nicholson’s evidence? Mr O’Malley then made some sharp strictures upon the style in which Mr Wells had opened his case: he had given way, he said, to much fervour and earnestness, which upon such cases was not exactly the way in which to usher them before a jury. As he intended to bring forward evidence, he ought not to have made such remarks; they were not necessary for the ends of justice. The question for them to consider was the sanity of the prisoner. Let them look at the facts of the case. They had before them that the prisoner was a man of most humane disposition; not evincing any violence, and not betraying a strength of will that overcame the judgement at ordinary times. He was remarkably attached to his wife and child up to the time that they became his victims, which was evidence as to the man’s insanity. They found him without a motive to perpetuate the crime; and when it was over – after his hands were embrued in the blood of those whom he loved best, they found him standing motionless by the fireplace, and afterwards lying down upon the same bed upon which the murdered wife and child had lain, without exhibiting the least remorse; but evincing the greatest apathy. If all the medical men in England were to come to him and state that this did not display symptoms of insanity, he would not believe them. He did not believe that any man standing in the same pool of blood and lying on the same bed, he had polluted by his wife and child’s murder, could be unmoved and yet sane. There was no malignity in his heart, to draw forth feelings of hatred or revenge; there was nothing to induce the belief that he had been actuated by a bad passion. The act itself was the strongest evidence of the man’s mind. Mr Nicholson stated, that sudden insanity was not unusual; and he had read in the public press, and probably they had also, that some time ago a gentleman in a railway carriage, was suddenly seized with insanity. He made, at the impulse of the moment, a fellow traveller kneel down and pray, dictating the words he should use; the unfortunate man then jumped from the carriage, and strange to say, he was not hurt. This was an analogous case. Mr Nicholson had stated that the suddenness of the impulse showed the decease. No man could ever display such a hardihood, as to commit such a crime on a sudden. The prisoner’s insanity had arisen from the usual symptoms, as had been described:- the restless nights, the headaches, and a recumbent position were favourable to the development of temporary insanity, and it was a constant rule in insane establishments, to make the patients rise early in the morning. The pecuniary losses of the prisoner had been referred to. Pecuniary losses and disappointments, were at times the occasion of this crime. The present instance was a breaking down of castles in the air, which might have demolished his intellect at the same time. The man had spoken of want and poverty; but they had it in evidence, that there were both food and money in the house, showing that there was some delusion upon his mind. He should produce witnesses before them, to prove the state of the prisoner’s mind. One person, whose evidence would have been produced, and which would have been valuable, was dead. But her depositions upon the subject had, just previous to her death, been taken. This was a Mrs Pepper, who had expressed a very decided opinion upon the prisoner’s intellect previous to the murders. He should produce her positions before the Court, if he were allowed; and as his learned friend had adduced parole evidence, he saw no objection to his doing the same. He should also prove that several of the prisoner’s relatives had been affected with insanity. He should also call before them several persons who would speak to the prisoner becoming from a lively and cheerful man to be suddenly converted to a moody and depressed one; he should also bring before them the evidence of the Governor of the gaol, relative to the prisoner’s conduct after his committal. Another medical man would tell them that he had no doubt but that the prisoner was labouring under insanity when committed the deeds. In alluding again to his learned friend’s introductory remarks, he denied that undue efforts had been made to prejudice the case; and when he looked at the gentleman by whose means this inquiry was made (alluding to Mr G G Day), he would leave them to judge, knowing, has he did, his high integrity and character, whether he, for one moment, would use improper efforts. No; he was actuated throughout by a sense of justice and humanity, highly creditable to him. If discussions had arisen in the public papers on this subject, no doubt they had had opportunities of reading both sides of the question, and if they had found anything written on the side of mercy, they had also found a good deal written on the other. It had been argued by some, perhaps that society ought to be protected; and that murderers’ ought not to be allowed to go unpunished. It was far better, in his opinion, that crime should go unpunished than the laws of justice should bed violated by punishing an innocent man. Better allow a murderer to escape, than to fall into such a woeful error. If, therefore, they had a reasonable opinion that the prisoner was labouring under disease of the mind when he committed the act, they must acquit him. They must not suppose, how4ever, that their acquittal would let loose a dangerous lunatic on society; his life would be spared, but his liberty would be restrained until Her Majesty’s pleasure. Mr O’Malley then said he should leave the case in their hands, fully persuaded that they would take a merciful view of the case, and then called

Ann Jordan, a relative to the prisoner, who stated that some of her relations had been insane; but it appeared that the prisoner’s father had been married twice, and the insane branches of the family had proceeded from the second wife, whereas the prisoner was by the first. This, Mr O’Malley acknowledged, rendered this part of his case weak.

Matilda Gorham, of Yaxley: I am a daughter-in-law of Hannah Pepper. I have known the prisoner all my life. He was accustomed to come to my house once a week. He was generally middling talkative. About a week before the murder, I observed a change in his manner. He became still, and did not discourse. My mother-in-law had a nephew in Northampton, a lunatic. Before the murder took place, I heard my mother-in-law say, in reference to the prisoner,-

Mr Wells objected.

By the Judge: My mother is now dead.

Mr O’Malley: Mr Wells has given parol evidence.

Mr Wells: I never knew such evidence given as Mr O’Malley wishes to introduce.

Examination continued: My mother expressed an opinion as to the prisoner’s mind the week before the murder. When I heard of the murder, I told Mrs Pepper and she expressed no surprise at the occurrence; but said, “I expected it would have been himself.”

Francis Burton: I am brother to the prisoner. I had an uncle, on my father’s side, who was insane. I was told so by my father. This uncle was accidentally drowned.

John Wyse: I am a plumber of Yaxley. I knew the prisoner; he having dealt with me for years. He dealt in old lead, bones, rags, etc. Ten days before the murder he came to me, and I observed a great strangeness in his behaviour – quite inconsistent with his former dealings. He could not calculate a small amount; before that he could count very well. When he came to me at the time I speak of, he was reserve, and when he was gone out, I made a remark to my daughter about his state of mind. I thought his mind was unsound. At other times he used to be chatty, though not a man of many words.

By Mr Wells: This was a few days before the murder. I bought about four shillings’ worth of lead off him, which he could not count.

Mr Gaches, a doctor of medicine, residing in Yaxley; I have known the prisoner several years; I used to see him almost every Monday. I observed, for many weeks before the murder, his alteration of manner; he appeared to suffer from mental depression. I saw him the Monday before the murder and I thought him of unsound mind; I am still of the same opinion. I was not at all surprised when I heard of the murder. I quite expected he would commit suicide. I have had some experience of cases of insanity; I have now an insane person in my house. The countenance indicates the mind very much, and I saw great changes in the prisoner’s countenance. I told him to do some business for me at Peterborough, but he was quite indifferent to any request. I have remarked that insane persons evince great repugnance to their nearest friends.

Cross-examined by Mr Wells: I did not warn his friends when I believed him to be lunatic; lunatics may be years before they act upon sudden impulses; my sons is the attorney for the prisoner.

George Smith: I am the governor of the gaol at Huntingdon. I have had the prisoner under my care since last June. I consider he has exhibited symptoms of insanity, and have treated him accordingly; I have constantly had two persons to take care of him. In August last, he laboured under extreme weakness of mind; he said that persons had attempted to take his life; that he had been dangerously ill, and they said he should not get well; that a cat had been thrown upon him to tear him to pieces, and that persons had been trying to force him under a cart to crush him.

By the Judge: I am convinced that these remarks were not purposely said, to mislead as to his insanity. When I informed him of the time of his execution, he displayed levity, and there was a smile upon his countenance: I never saw anything like it before. I asked him, when he first came in the prison, if he would not have legal assistance; he replied that he had done nothing, and therefore wanted no assistance. This concluded the evidence for the defence.

Mr Wells then called Mr Wright, a surgeon, of Stilton. He said, I have known the prisoner several years. I was in the habit of seeing him daily; I saw him a few days before the murders, he was on his way to Peterborough; I observed nothing particular about him; he was apparently in his usual state. I saw the prisoner the day after the murder; I said to him, “You must be thirsty; you look hot;” but he made no reply. It would be difficult for me to attempt an explanation of the different forms of insanity, I cannot class his acts under any practical form of insanity; from my professional knowledge I have no reason to believe that he was insane, but the facts I have heard are not inconsistent with cerebral disease.

Charles Wood: I keep the George Inn, Stilton, and have known the prison 25-30 years. I saw him perhaps a week before the commission of the acts – but I am not certain; during all the time I knew him he was as sound in mind as I am.

Henry Wood: I live at Stilton, and have known the prisoner six or seven years; I saw him seven or eight days before the murders; he came into my yard; there was nothing more than usual in his appearance. He said he expected some money, and when he got it he should but a pony and cart, and extend his business.

William Gregory, butcher, of Stilton: I have known the prisoner ever since he came to the town. I saw him on the Sunday previous to the murder; I saw nothing particular in his appearance; he came for a quart of porter, which was rather more than usual for him.

Mary Walpole, grocer, of Stilton: I have known the prisoner several years; I frequently saw him; the last time on the 27^th of May, he appeared as usual.

John Cobley, of Sawtry; I have known the prison upwards of 30 years; on the 27^th of May I went to Peterborough with the prisoner, to Mr Gachies; we went about our money; we ought to have received some but we did not. I lunched with the prisoner; we returned together; prisoner called at Martin’s and bought a razor home with him; we took tea together, and during the whole day I saw nothing more particular about prisoner than I do about you (the counsel) – (From the flippant and ridiculous manner in which this witness gave his evidence upon this solemn trial by which he made the Court frequently laugh, it might well lead to the supposition that he was as insane, if not more so, than the prisoner.)

Cross-examined by Mr O’Malley: Now, Sir, did you not tell this gentleman (pointing to Mr Nicholson) that when you were going over a bridge with the prisoner, on your return from Peterborough, that he looked so queer that you thought he was going to throw himself into the water?

Witness: No, I did not.

Mr Nicholson was called, and stated that Cobley did make that statement.

Mr O’Malley again addressed the jury, and compared the evidence of the witnesses for the defence with that of those for the prosecution, relative to the prisoner’s unsound state of mind.

Mr Wells replied, and defended himself against the remarks made by Mr O’Malley, relative to the manner in which he had opened the cased, and said that his conscience freed him of any extension of his duty. Mr Wells then animadverted upon the case and the testimony of the witnesses for the defence.

His Lordship’s summing up occupied an hour and a half, and the jury consulted for about a quarter of an hour, then retired, and after an absence of another quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of “Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity.” The effect of this verdict being that the prisoner will be kept in confinement during her Majesty’s pleasure.

The prisoner, throughout the trial, appeared in a listless, apathetic state and during the summing up, sat down and partook of some refreshment with great indifference. His appearance, on the whole, betokened a weak intellect.

On 12 March 1849, Charles Burton is listed in the Huntingdonshire Criminal Register for Murder with an outcome of ‘acquitted “Insane”’.

***************************************

In 1851, three years following their daughter Harriet’s murder, William (65) was still earning a living in High Street Stilton as a Shoemaker. He lived with Ellen, 71, and their grandson, Harriet’s son, George (15), a Scholar. William died aged 73 and was buried in St Mary’s Churchyard Stilton on 31 May 1859. Ellen died aged 90 and was buried in St Mary’s Churchyard on 29 August 1872.

Harriet’s son, George was 24 when he married Sarah Weldon (23) on 1 July 1861, Farcet and gave his father’s name as George Yarrow for the register. George and Sarah had five children: Darius who died as an infant in 1863, James (bapt: 8 May 1865 Farcet), Joseph Oliver (bapt: 28 March 1869 Farcet), Ada Ann (bapt: 9 July 1872 Farcet – 14 March 1929 Farcet) and George William (1874- 1919 aged 45). George was an agricultural labourer and after marrying Sarah, moved to Farcet and remained there until his death.

George died in 1907 aged 70 and Sarah in 1912 aged 76.