The Bermondsey murder : a full report of the trial of Frederick George Manning and Maria Manning, for the murder of Patrick O'Connor, at Minver-place, Bermondsey, on the 9th of August, 1849. Including memoirs of Patrick O'Connor, Frederick George Manning, and Maria Manning. With their portraits, and several other engravings.

Date:: 1849

Credit: The Bermondsey murder : a full report of the trial of Frederick George Manning and Maria Manning, for the murder of Patrick O'Connor, at Minver-place, Bermondsey, on the 9th of August, 1849. Including memoirs of Patrick O'Connor, Frederick George Manning, and Maria Manning. With their portraits, and several other engravings. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

38/88 (page 34)

$street, about three minutes’ walk from Minver-placo; and a little later he was apain seen by another person on Lon lon-bri 'ge, apparently hesitating which wav he should go That was the Inst occasion on which he was seen alive. On the 13ih of August the two nri- Mners precipitately left tli^eir house, in the manner wliich he would subsequently describe. On the I4th of August their landlord found the house in whi. h they had lived unoccu- pied, It having been left without notice ; and on the 17ih, the police, having obtained access to the house, made a diligent and careful search of the premises; and in the back kitchen, under the flagged paveinenr, at the depth of about four feet, was found the body of Patrick O Connor, thrust into a hole, the legs being bound back to the haunches co- vered with Ihne, and naked. No clothes of the deceased were found iip'n the prernises; no let'er of invitat on to him to dinner; no instruments likely to h ive inflicted the wounds which had caused O’Connor’s death. The bod}' had been and would be clearly identified. Although, of course, the fact of finding the body of O’Connor under such circumstances in the hou>e occupied alone by the two prisoners, was not to be taken alone as conclusive of the guilt, of both or either of the prisoners, there could be no doubt that—the body being mutilated by a shot through the head, and the skuH being fractured in a dreadful manner—by some party or other O’Connor was murdered between the 9th of August, when he was la.st seen alive, and the 17th of that month. Me (the Attorney-General) thought Ills learned friends who were retained for the prisoners would have no right to complain, then, if he started with the a.ssumption tint this unfortunate man had been murdered on the premises ; and he thought, also, that it was no unfair presumption to conclude that one or oilier of the prisoners had taken part in the dreadful act. He feared that, when the Jury heard the evid'nce to be adduced, they would be of opinion that the death of O’Connor was the result of a deep-laid plot ; and the question for them to consider would be, whether both or either of the prisoners had been concerned in that plot. Before he proceeded to stste to them the evidence, it was his duty to point out one or two legal principles which were applicable to the case. The J iry had heard of the charge in the indictment, which was !■ id in various ways. Friderick George Manning, the male prisoner, was charged with having actually committed the murder, by shooting the decea<ed, by stiiking him with a crow-bar, by both shooting and striking him, and b}T shooting him with an air gun; and Maria Manning, the female prisoner, was charged with b iiig present, and aiding and abetting in the commission of the act. The law required that the charge should be thus technically hud, but it did not re- quire that it should be so tcchiiicallv proved. If the Jury should be of opinion that Maria Manning s was the hand that committed the fatal deed, and that the husband was pre- sent—thonah not actually present in the very rcoin, but to far present as to be aiding and asdsti g in the act ; nay, if it were supposed that some person not mentioned in the inuictment had committed the murder, but that the male prisoner was present, aiding and ab' ttiin;, he must be found guilty. The Jury, there'ore, would not be encumbered by any techuted inquiry as to whether it was the hand of the m in or the woman that inflicted the deadly w oitncl upon the dec-ased. If either of them committed the ac , and the other was present, iiitrticiiiatiug in the murder, hoth would be guilty of the charge. Formerly, there was another ilifficully which might have been presented in an inquiry of this description. When dreadful crimes of this kind were committed, it w^s se'dom that any one but the immediate actors were present: it was difficult to get actual and eye testimony of the commissiiin of such offences; .and juries were satisfied with that which he thought was in its nature sometimes even more satisiaciory—not ocular, but circumstantial, though conclusive evidence. On some occasions it had been found necessary to ascertain whether all persons who were charged with offeiicis of this description were actually, peisonally, and legally present at the time of their commission ; for though those who concerted ai;d counselled and effected a murder were, legally and morally, equally guilty and responsible for the conse- quence, the law formerly required that persons should be charged according to their actual degrees of guilt—principals as principals, and accessorie.a as accessories; and if the Jury doubted whether persons were really present, legally and actually, at the time of the murder, though they might have concerted the murder, such perS'Uis were acquitted upon a technical objection. That, linwever, was provided against by a recent statute. The 11th and 12th Viet, c. 46, s. 1, enacted that those who were accessoiies before the fact to any felony, including murder,might be indicted and punished as principals; and the Jury in this case would there'ore be relieved from all difficulty in considering whether Manning struck the deadly blow in the presence of bis wife, or whether she committed the act with the previous knowledge of her husband. There was another legal proposition to which he wished to advert. 'I’he Jury'were aware that, in some cases, the humanity of the law pre.sumed that married women were under the coercion and constraint of their husbands; and there were some offences which, if committed by a imirried woman in the presence of her husband, were excused, by the indulgi nee of the law, and he alone was criminal. That rule, however, never did or ougnt to apply to offences which tlie law termed mata in sc—those which were heinous and abhorrent to the laws of natcre; and it never had been supposed that in the case of treason or'iiurder juries should be encumbered by any question us to whether a woman, if present was acting under the coercion o<'her husband. I'liese were propositions to which he wished’to call the attention of the Jury before be stated the facts, 'lliere was, however, one$

Licence and re-use

Contents