Murder of infant Thomas Sandles

Date: 8 Sep 1848 [unknown]
Location: Chailey, Sussex, England, United Kingdom
Surname/tag: Sandles

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Individuals Mentioned in the Case 3 Newspaper Articles 3.1 Coroner's Inquest 3.2 Murder Trial, Lewes Assizes 4 Sources

Introduction

On the 8th of September 1848, a widowed pauper, Hannah Sandles (43 years old) left the workhouse in Chailey, Sussex to start a new life in London, 40 miles away. When she left the workhouse, she was accompanied by her three children: Eliza (8), William (6) and Thomas (2 months old.) Later that day, when Hannah stopped to rest, only the two older children were with her. The body of the infant, Thomas, was discovered in a well. Hannah was tried, convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Later, her sentence was commuted, and she was transported to Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania). Hannah and her children Eliza and William all remained in Tasmania for the rest of their lives.

Individuals Mentioned in the Case

Hannah (Tingley) Sandles (accused)
Thomas Sandles (victim)
Louisa (Sandles) Wellsman (eldest daughter)
[[Eliza (Sandells) Stevenson (abt.1840-1912)(younger daughter)
William Sandles (son)
Jane (Sherlock) Tingley (Hannah's sister-in-law)
Sarah (Tingley) Standing (Hannah's sister)
George Sandles (late husband)
John Mansfield (father of her children Eliza and William)
Henry Entwistle (Hannah's second husband)
Benjamin Rushbrook (Hannah's third husband)

Jane (Turle) Manners (discovered the body)
Ann (Manners) Hills (helped at the scene)
John Lambert (recovered the body)
Ansley Vincent (witness, neighbour)
Joseph Gaston (neighbour)
Hannah Cherriman (witness, neighbour)

Francis Harding Gell (coroner)
Henry Fowler Mackay (constable)
William Gambier Walker (post mortem exam)
Henry Harper (constable)

James Park (governor of the Chailey Workhouse)
Elizabeth Park (his wife, matron of the Chailey Workhouse)
Charlotte Simmons (abt.1813-bef.1880) (witness, inmate of the workhouse)
Jane Nicholls (witness, inmate of the workhouse)
Stephen Hale (Hannah's former employer, petition for clemency)

Newspaper Articles

Coroner's Inquest

Morning Chronicle [London] 1848 September 25, page 8.^[1]

On Saturday last F. H. Gell, Esq., coroner for East Sussex, concluded an inquest, after two adjournments, on the body of an infant child which was found in a well at Chailey. The inquest was held at the King's Head Inn, near the spot. Captain Mackay, chief constable of the East Sussex constabulary, was in attendance. The inquest commenced on the 16th instant, when Mrs. Jane Manners, a widow living in a cottage by the turnpike road from Lewes to London, deposed that on going to her well that morning to draw water, she saw something floating on the surface, which, on being drawn out by her neighbours, proved to be the dead body of a male child, which she considered to be about two months old.

Mr. Walker, a surgeon of Newick, having examined the body, expressed his belief that it had been in the water several days, as decomposition had commenced. There were no external marks of violence. On opening the body, he found the whole of the interior healthy, the brain was a little congested, the lungs considerably so: and in his opinion death had been caused by suffocation produced by drowning.

These and other witnesses stated that the head was scurfy, and that there was a scale on the forehead, and an abrasion or soreness on the left thigh. The next witness was Mrs. Elizabeth Park, wife of the Governor of the Chailey Union Workhouse. She stated that between five and six months ago, Hannah Sandles brought two children with her into the workhouse. Sandles was in the family way at the time; and on the 20th July she was dalivered of a male child. She remained in the house till Friday, the 8th inst., when she left with her children about a quarter past nine o'clock in the morning, for the purpose, as she said, of going to London. The infant had a scurfy head, there was a scale on the forehead, and the left thigh was sore. In these particulars the child corresponded with that found in the well.

Mrs. Park's evidence was corroborated by Charlotte Simmons, a pauper inmate of the Union house. Both witnesses expressed a belief that the deceased was the child of Hannah Sandles, but declined to swear positively to the fact. Charlotte Simmons added that Sandles often in her presence expressed a wish that the child might die, and that God would take it. She had written letters for her to her daughter Louisa Sandles, 15, Blackfriars-road, near Gravel- lane, London ; and also to a lady, named Hales, at the Waterloo Hotel, Jermyn-street, for whom Sandles told her that she had worked.

Sandles, it was stated, was a widow, and the Louisa Sandles named was her daughter by her husband, who died 15 years ago. Subsequently Sandles had lived with a man named Mansfield, who was the father of the two children that accompanied her into the workhouse. Of the paternity of the infant of which she was delivered in the workhouse, she was said to have expressed her ignorance.

The Coroner then adjourned the inquest till the 19th, in order that Sandles might be apprehended and brought before the jury. On that day she was informed by the coroner that she was charged with the wilful murder of the deceased child, and the depositions previously taken were read over in her presence.

Charlotte Simmons was again examined. She stated that when the prisoner left the workhouse, the infant was dressed in a frock and petticoat of the same pattern as the apron which the prisoner wore. The child's dress was given to her by Mrs. Park, and was made up in the workhouse.

Henry Harper, superintendent of the East Sussex constabulary, stated that on the previous day he went to London in search of the prisoner. He found her near the Victoria Theatre. She came out of her lodgings to him into the street. He asked, " What is your name?" She replied "' Hannah Mansfield." "Have you a daughter called Louisa Sandles?" She replied, " Yes." "Did you leave Chailey lately?" "Yes." "When?" "Last Friday week." He then told her that he wished to see her children whom she had brought from Chailey; and she said she brought away two children, and she took him to a school in the Commercial-road and showed him two children, one about eight the other six years of age. Mr. Park, governor of the workhouse, had accompanied him to London, and was at the Marquis of Granby Inn in the Borough.

He took the prisoner thither; and in his presence, asked her, "How many children did you bring with you from Chailey?" She said, "I brought three; and one I left on the road with my sister." Witness asked the sister's name; and she replied, "I decline answering that question." He then said, "Unless you tell me where the child is, it will be my duty to detain you, and take you back with me to Chailey." He told her to reflect before she gave an answer, as the answer might be brought against her. An hour and a half afterwards, he asked what was her decision, and she replied, "I would rather answer the gentlemen in the country." He then took her into custody.

The prisoner being cautioned that what she said would be taken down, declined saying anything.

The inquest was again adjourned to Saturday, when evidence was given by two women, one of whom had seen a woman resembling the prisoner at ten o'clock on the morning of the 8th instant, with three children, going towards the cottage of Mrs. Manners; the other was Mrs. Vincent, keeper of a beer-shop at Dane-hill (on the other side of Mrs. Manners's cottage) who deposed that on the same day, between eleven and twelve o'clock, the prisoner called at her house, accompanied by two children, neither of them being an infant. She said she had left Chailey, and was going to London.

Henry Barry, sergeant of he M division of the metropolitan police, corroborated the evidence of Harper as to the conversation between him and the prisoner in the presence of Mr. Park, and added that he also hear the prisoner say, speaking of a shilling which she had received on leaving the union house, "They knew when they gave me the shilling that I could not reach London with the child." Witness produced some printed cotton found at the prisoner's lodgings in Southwark, and which was of the same pattern as the child's dress and apron, previously spoken of.

Of the latter fact Mrs. Park was recalled to give evidence.

The prisoner declined asking questions or making any statement.

The jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder" against her, and she was thereupon committed to Lewes gaol to take her trial at the next assizes on the capital charge.

Murder Trial, Lewes Assizes

Brighton Gazette, 29 March 1849, pages 6-7. ^[2]

MURDER AT CHAILEY.

Hannah Sandles, widow, aged 47, was indicted for the murder of her infant child, Thomas Sandles, the 8th September, by casting it into a well at Chailey. A second count charged her with killing the infant in some way unknown.

Mr Cobbett and Mr Johnson conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was not provided with counsel, but at the request of the Judge, Mr Clarkson undertook her defence.

Mr Cobbett adverted the chief points of the case; and then called evidence.

Jane Manners, widow, living near the turnpike road in Chailey, deposed that on the 16th September, she found in the well attached to her cottage, the naked body of a dead male child, about two months old. On the 8th September she was away from home all day, leaving no one in the house. Ann Hills saw the child taken out of the well. It had brown hair, thick scurf on the head, and a black bruise on the forehead. John Lambert, a labourer from the adjoining parish of Fletching, took the body out of the well. He called the mark on the forehead, not a bruise but a scab.

Mr William Gambier Walker, a surgeon, at Newick, near Chailey, deposed—l am the medical officer of the Chailey Union Workhouse. On Saturday, the 16th September, I was shewn the body of a child in a stable near Mrs Manners’s cottage. I made a post mortem examination. There were marks of decomposition about the forehead, the upper part of the face, and round the mouth. The tongue was considerably swollen. There was a mark on the forehead, as if left by some eruption, and around it was a quantity of dirt. The head was scurfy. There was a sore about the thigh. I attended the child of the prisoner in the workhouse for an eruption about the forehead, about fortnight or three weeks before the prisoner left.
Judge—Can you say whether this was the same child?
Witness—l cannot. I examined the lungs of the deceased; they were considerably congested, otherwise healthy. The heart was healthy, but contained dark fluid blood. The stomach and other viscera seemed perfectly healthy. There was no appearance of disease. Judging by appearances, have no doubt that the child died from suffocation. I should consider the child about two months old.

Cross-examined—Nothing is more common than scurvy among the children of the poor. Irritation between the thighs is also a common thing among infants. The child had been in the water four or five days, at least. I come to that conclusion partly because the child was stated to be on the surface the water; decomposition would commence in a body under the water.
Judge—Because there is air in water.
Witness —Just so, my lord.
Mr Clarkson—l suppose it would be difficult to tell if the child was dead before it was put into the well, or died after it was in the water?
Witness—l do not think it possible to tell.

Charlotte Summers [sic (Charlotte Simmons)], inmate of the workhouse, deposed — The prisoner came into the workhouse on the 25th March. She brought in a girl and a boy. Prisoner was confined on the 8th of July of a male child, and I assisted in her confinement, and in nursing the child. The child had long arms and large hands. I noticed a mark on the forehead about the size of a large pea. I asked what it was, and the prisoner said it was scurvy. I had observed between the child’s legs some sore marks, under the left thigh. The prisoner left the workhouse on Friday, the 8th September, about quarter past nine, with her three children. The infant was dressed in a striped cotton print, exactly like that produced. I have written letters for prisoner to her daughter and Mrs Hales. Prisoner always gave me strict charge not to mention anything to her daughter about her pregnancy or the birth of the child. She told me to describe her as Mrs Mansfield. Before the birth of the child, prisoner said to me, "I hope it may die at its birth" and in her confinement she said (addressing the child), "I wish to God you would die."

On the 16th September I was shown a child by Mr Walker, the surgeon. It had just such long arms and hands as the prisoner’s child had. It resembled the mother about the nose and mouth. (Witness here described marks the thigh and the scurfy appearance as before spoken of). I have no doubt it was the same child as that of which the prisoner was delivered. I saw the prisoner again at the inquest at Chailey, on the 19th September. She had an apron just like the print produced, made up in the workhouse by the prisoner and Jane Nicholls. About week before she left the union-house, prisoner desired to write to her daughter to know if she could get sixpence from her brother.

Cross-examined —Prisoner’s husband is dead; this was a love child, and she did not wish her daughter to know. Although she wished the child dead, she did not show any unkindness to the infant. I could swear positively to the body of the child, and always have done so. I am aware the child was advanced in decomposition. I never tried to conceal that I have had three children. I have sworn only one of those children. I have had much to do with children besides my own. I have seen children irritated between the legs; and I have seen scurvy about children. I have said that it was the child, but that I should not like to swear to it.

Judge—What it the reason you said so?
Witness —Because I thought it was hard to say so; but I knew it was.
Mr Clarkson— What do you mean by "hard to say so?" Was it difficult to say so?
Witness— Because it might hurt the mother’s feelings.
Mr Clarkson—Did you not say you could not, and would not, take your oath it was the same child?
Witness—I said I would not like to say so. I believe it to be the child, because the features resembled the mother, and because of the length of the arms and legs.

Jane Nicholls, another inmate of the Workhouse, deposed that she heard the prisoner say, "There is no one in London knows I am in the family way, and I do not wish them to know it." Witness here identified part of a frock and part of a petticoat with some of her own work in it, and these clothes she had no doubt were the clothes in which the baby of the prisoner was dressed when it was taken away from the Workhouse. She had heard prisoner wish the death of her child. She helped to dress the infant the morning prisoner took it away.
By the Judge—l have often seen the child in the Workhouse. I cannot say whether it had convulsions.

Mr Walker was recalled, and his Lordship asked him whether the child would have had the same appearance if it had died of convulsions; and he replied that it would.
Judge—Should you have expected to find any other appearance if it had died of convulsions?
Witness—l should have expected to find the fists clenched and the muscles in a more rigid state.
By Mr Clarkson —I do not think a nurse knows how to treat a child in convulsions. The palms of the hands were partially closed. If the body had been in the water a week, the hands probably would have had the relaxed appearance which those of the infant taken from the well had. The stiffness of the muscles would, I think, go off in a week.

Hannah Cherriman, wife of a labourer at Chailey—l live about 50 yards from Mrs Manners’s house. On the 8th September, about ten in the morning, I saw a person, whom I believe to be the prisoner, at the garden-gate adjoining the turnpike road. She had a baby in her arms, and a boy and girl with her. She was going towards London. The infant wore a coloured print, resembling somewhat the clothes produced, but I cannot say exactly. I noticed her several yards before she got to the house. I had seen the prisoner before.

Elisa Sandles, a child ten years old, daughter of the prisoner, was then placed on the table. The prisoner, who had before been much affected, here burst into a violent flood of tears. A number of questions were put to the child as to the nature of oath; but she did not appear to understand them, and his Lordship would not allow her to give evidence.

Ann Lindley, housekeeper to Joseph Gaston, who keeps a beer-shop about four miles to the London side of Mrs Manners's house, deposed—On the 8th September the prisoner came to my house; she had two children with her, a boy and a girl, but no infant. The boy was about seven and the girl about nine. She appeared to be in trouble; and said she had come from the Chailey Union, and was going to London. She left the house, and went on the road towards London.
Cross-examined —She said she had a sixpence, which she changed, and she supplied some bread to the children.
Re-examined—She brought the bread with her. She paid for half a pint of fourpenny, and I gave her some bread and cheese and pudding.
By Mr Clarkson—She said sixpence was all she had to go to London. Our beer-shop is about forty miles from London.

Henry Harper, Superintendent of the East Sussex Constabulary—On the 18th September I went to London by direction of the coroner, accompanied by Mr Park, Governor of the Chailey Union, in search of the prisoner. On the 19th I went to where I understood to be the lodgings of the prisoner in Lambeth, accompanied by an officer of the metropolitan police force. I sent a messenger to her lodgings, and she came out. Neither of us was dressed in our uniform. I asked her name; and she said, "My name is Mansfield." I asked if she had a daughter of the name of Louisa Sandles; and she replied, "Yes." I asked her whether she had lately come from Chailey ; and she said, "Yes." I asked how long ago; and I believe her answer was "last Friday week." I then said, "Where are the children you brought with you from Chailey?" She replied that she had brought two, one of the age of six and the other of eight, and that they were at the National School in the Commercial Road. She said it was near the time of their coming out and she was going to them.

I went with her, and the children came out. I left them at the house of the daughter, and proposed to the prisoner that she should go with me to see Mr Park, at the Marquis of Granby, in Gravel Lane. I took her into a room where Mr Park was. He said, "How do you do, Mrs Sandles?" She seemed very much affected; and I asked her to sit down and compose herself. In the presence of Mr Park I asked how many children she brought from Chailey? She answered "Three," and then said she had left the third child at her sister’s house on the road. Upon that I asked her sister's name and where she lived; and she replied, "I decline giving an answer."

Mr Clarkson—Did you not say, that if she did not answer your question to where the child was, it would be your duty to detain her and take her to jail?
Witness—l believe that was part of it. I told her to reflect before she gave an answer, as what she said might be given in evidence against her. At the end of an hour I asked her what her decision was? I did not tell her that I had a warrant to apprehend her. I did tell her that she need not answer me unless she thought proper.
Mr Clarkson—Look at that (producing a copy of the evidence.)
Witness —l did not say that I should take her into custody. I will not swear that I did not say so. I considered it to be my duty to make her aware that she was not bound to answer a single question.
The Judge asked witness if he had any written questions? Witness —I wrote down the questions before I asked thus, and read them from a paper.
Mr Clarkson—l did not say that the caution was written on my memorandum at the time. I made it a memorandum afterwards.
Mr Cobbett—On the same day that I brought the prisoner down to Chailey, I took the apron produced from her person.

Henry Barry, sergeant in the Metropolitan police—l heard the questions put by Harper to the prisoner; and as I recollect, he has stated them correctly. Before prisoner's departure he entrusted the key of the door where Prisoner was lodging to me. On the 20th I went to the lodging and unlocked her door, and, in the room, I found the flannel and the printed cotton tied in a bundle under the bed with other things. I have had them in my custody ever since.
Cross examined— I have been sitting in court whilst Harper was examined. The prisoner burst into tears after Harper questioned her. I did not hear him say, "It will save you a great deal of trouble." I cannot say positively. He did say, "Unless you produce the child, or the sister, I shall take you into custody, and it will save you a great deal of trouble if you do."

James Park, Governor of the Workhouse, corroborated.

Jane Tinley, wife of a labourer Horsted Keynes, the prisoner’s brother, and Sarah Standing, the prisoner’s only sister, living at Isfield, deposed that the prisoner did not leave an infant with either of them.

Mr Clarkson addressed the jury for the prisoner. He reprobated in strong terms the course taken by the Superintendent of the East Sussex Constabulary in his apprehension of the prisoner, which he designated something like entrapping a person. Going in plain clothes and questioning the prisoner was a sort of masquerading of which he did not approve, and the police ought to know their duties better. The learned counsel dwelt at great length on the evidence of the surgeon, for the purpose of showing that it was difficult to decide of what the child died, supposing that it was the child of the prisoner. Suppose the child in the well died of convulsions, how was the prisoner to convince them of the fact? With regard to the testimony of Miss Simmons, they must look upon that with suspicion; for she did not bear the most reputable character. At most, it was only a case of suspicion; and if they had a doubt of the prisoner’s guilt, they would give her the benefit of such doubt.

In summing up, the Judge remarked that if the child died of convulsions, it was singular that it should have been found in the well without clothes, and it was also singular that the prisoner should have told the constable that she had left the child on the road with her sister. There was nothing show that the child had been subject to convulsions. In allusion to the severe cross-examination which Harper had undergone, His Lordship said the most material part of his evidence was that which was elicited from the prisoner before the threat of detaining her in custody was held out.

After deliberating about ten minutes, the jury returned verdict of "GUILTY of drowning the child, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of the character that she had received for general humanity.

The Judge then put on the black cap, on which the unfortunate woman’s sufferings appeared to be intense.

His Lordship then proceeded to pass the awful sentence of the law upon the miserable woman, telling her that the recommendation of the jury would be laid before the proper quarter, but that she must not expect any such mercy to be conceded to her. He exhorted her to spend the few remaining days that she had to pass in this world in prayer, and to ask forgiveness from above, she must not expect to receive it on earth. His Lordship then pasted the sentence in the usual form.

Numbers of persons in the Court were affected to tears.

The prisoner was led from the dock in state of complete exhaustion.

The trial lasted from about nine o'clock till four.

Sources

1. ↑ Morning Chronicle [London, England] Monday 25 September 1848 [digitized newspaper online] British Newspaper Archive (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000082/18480925/028/0008 : accessed 12 Aug 2023), "Murder at Chailey," page 8, column 1.
2. ↑ "Murder at Chailey," Brighton Gazette [Sussex, England], 29 March 1849, pp 6-7 [digitized newspaper online] British Newspaper Archive (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000938/18490329/022/0006 : accessed 9 September 2023.) Appreciation to the Sussex History Forum: South-East History Boards, 31 January 2019, Hannah Sandles - Chailey, September, 1848 (http://sussexhistoryforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=15109.0 : accessed 2 September 2023), for their excellent information about this topic.