The original and the only authentic account of the trial of Eugene Aram (late a school-master at Knaresbrough) for the murder of Daniel Clark; with his autobiography, and a particular account of his studies, and literary attainments; also, several of his letters, and poems; and his plan and specimens of an Anglo-Celtic lexicon / [Eugene Aram].

  • Aram, Eugene, 1704-1759.
Date:
[between 1800 and 1899?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The original and the only authentic account of the trial of Eugene Aram (late a school-master at Knaresbrough) for the murder of Daniel Clark; with his autobiography, and a particular account of his studies, and literary attainments; also, several of his letters, and poems; and his plan and specimens of an Anglo-Celtic lexicon / [Eugene Aram]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    13/100 (page 9)
    faultering in his speech, &c. This, with the strong circumstances given by Mrs. Aram, &c. gave a suspicion that he must have been concerned in the murder of Clark, though he gave no account of the matter, and denied that he knew any thing concerning that murderous transaction. Upon the skeleton’s being produced, Houseman* at the coroner’s request, took up one of the bones; and in his confusion, dropped this unguarded expression, This is no more Dan Clark's bone than it is mine /” From which it was concluded, that if Houseman was so certain that the bones before him were not Dan Clark’s, he could give some account of him ; and being told so, he answered, “That he could produce a witness who had seen Daniel Clark upon the road two or three days after he was missing at Knaresbrough.” Ac¬ cordingly the witness, one Parkinson, was sent for; who, on being asked the question, told the coroner and jury, “That he himself had never seen Daniel Clark after that time, viz. the 8th of February, 1744-5; that a friend of his ( Parkinson’s) told him he had met a person like Daniel Clark, but, as it was a snowy day. and the person had the cape of his great coat up, he could not say, with the least degree of certainty, who he was.” This, so far from being satisfactory, increased the suspicion, that Houseman was either the mur¬ derer of Clark, or an accomplice in the murder, whereupon, the constable applied to William Thornton, esq. of Thornville; who, being informed