Courtroom Ghosts

John Ellis Born in Rochdale 1874, John Ellis would try his hand at a variety of occupations, including newsagent and hairdresser, before becoming an assistant executioner in 1901 and eventually Chief Executioner in 1907. Hanging a total of 203 people, Ellis' career spanned twenty-three years and only ended with his resignation in  early 1924. That summer, he was himself in the dock on a charge of attempted suicide, after shooting himself in the jaw. Appearing in court that August, he apparently 'looked very ill, and had two or three days' growth of beard on his face [...] During the proceedings he leaned wearily on the edge of the dock'. Mr Ellis was bound over for twelve months, meaning that he agreed not to repeat the attempt and that if he did, he would be brought back before the court on the original charge. Promising to give up the drinking habit that he claimed had precipitated the suicide attempt, Ellis left court and walked into obscurity.  The Scots...

In the last post, I twice quoted Mr Justice James Shaw Willes as he railed against men who held the notion that they had some entitlement to beat their wives. Here, I will explain a little more about him, and explore the ways in which society responded to his suicide, as well as looking at general attitudes towards those who took, or attempted to take, their own lives. Born in Cork in 1814, Willes attended Trinity College, Dublin, graduating in 1836. In 1840, he was called to the bar at Inner Temple. Most famous for his decision in Phillips v Eyre in 1870, Willes also presided over the trial of Constance Kent in 1865. Standing trial for the murder of her 3-year-old half-brother five years earlier, Kent’s story caused a great deal of public speculation. Kate Summerscale’s excellent book, TheSuspicions of Mr Whicher or the Murder at Road Hill Hous e is definitely worth reading to gain an understanding of the case; Summerscale is easily one of the best writers in the genre of historical ...

Caroline Norton (1808-1877) was an author and social campaigner. Having left her husband in 1836, she would have been able to support herself with her earnings as an author, except for the fact that her earnings legally belonged to him. Her earnings were confiscated and her husband left her with nothing. In response, Caroline decided to run up a series of debts which would, of course, be the responsibility of her husband since she herself was, essentially, a legal nonentity.  Caroline Norton, c. 1850-60 Caroline's husband took the children; Caroline was not allowed to see them and she had no legal recourse to demand access. In 1855, when Parliament debated issues around divorce reform, Caroline submitted her own story to MPs, writing that "those dear children, the loss of whose pattering steps and sweet occasional voices made the silence of [my] new home intolerable as the anguish of death... What I suffered respecting those children, God knows... Under the evil law which su...