Kent, Francis Savile

Kent, Francis 1860 July 7^th Rode

The Rode Hill House Murder Case

Mysterious Murder at Road

The usually tranquil neighbourhood of Road, a village near North Bradley, Wilts, has just been fearfully agitated by the discovery of an appalling murder done on the body of an interesting boy four years of age, named Francis Saville Kent, youngest son of Mr Kent, sub-inspector of factories, residing at Road, just on the borders of Somerset. The following particulars have transpired respecting this frightful tragedy, which for cold-blooded cunning and cool deliberate cruelty has seldom been surpassed in the annals of crime. It appears that Mr Kent has twice been married, and that his family consisted of five children, two of whom were the offspring of his second marriage. The deceased child was the second of these.

On Friday night, the family went to bed as usual, the boy occupying a crib in the same room as the nurserymaid, as he had been accustomed to do. About eleven o’clock, Mrs Kent went into the room, remarking to the girl that the comet was visible. Having remained there a few minutes, she left the room, previously kissing her son in his crib, as was her custom. The father soon after looked in and kissed him, and every one retired for the night. Nothing occurred during the night to excite alarm. In the morning, however, the nurserymaid knocked at the door of the parents, and asked in a collected manner whether they had Master Francis in their room, as he was not in his crib. They replied that they had not seen him, and remarked that he must be somewhere in the house. The house, however, was searched to no purpose; and in continuing the search, the body of the hapless child was found in the privy, wrapped in a blanket, his head nearly severed from his body, and his breast stabbed through with a knife or some sharp instrument.

The assistance of the parish police was immediately obtained, but we are unable to announce discovery likely to inculpate any one in the house. The privy was searched most minutely, and the only result was the discovery of an unrecognised piece of flannel. It was supposed that this article might lead to the detection of the person who committed the murder; and the laundress of the family was sent for to identify it; but she positively declared that she had never washed such an article for any of the family. The ground was also dug in the neighbourhood of the receptacle, but hitherto no knife or anything likely to inculpate any one has been discovered. The strangest part of the story is that no stain of blood has been found on any of the household linen; nor is any knife or razor missing. And yet, Mr Parsons, the surgeon, who was sent for from Beckington, declares it to be his opinion that had a skilful surgeon inflicted the injuries, he must have been covered with blood. Doubtless, further search may throw light on this strange transaction, but at the present its object, motive, and perpetrator, are alike wrapt in profound security.

For the sake of clarity, I add the following list of names of those in the house. Mr and Mrs Kent, the three daughters and a son from his first marriage – Mary Ann, Elizabeth, and Constance Emily, and William Saville Kent. The children of the second Mrs Kent were Mary Amelia Saville Kent, five years old, Francis Saville Kent, the deceased, three years and ten months old, and Eveline Fanny Kent, nearly two years of age. At the time of the occurrence Mrs Kent was about to produce another son, Acland Savile Kent.

The Inquest

The inquest on the body was held on Monday at the Red Lion Inn, Road, by G Sylvester, Esq., coroner, and the following evidence was adduced –

Sarah Cox, housemaid to Mr Kent, deposed – It is my duty to fasten the front of the house, and in the evening of Friday, the 29^th of June, I fastened the windows and shutters and door of the drawing room. The windows could not be opened from the outside without damaging the woodwork. There has been no disagreement between myself or any of my fellow servants and our mistress. On Saturday morning, the 30^th of June, I came down stairs at five minutes past six, and found the drawing-room door open, and the shutters and window slightly so. When I went to bed on Friday night I left my master and mistress up. When I discovered the door open in the morning, I informed Mr Kent, and he came down stairs.

Elizabeth Gough said – I have lived with Mr Kent, as nurse, for the last eight months. The deceased child was a cheerful happy boy, and slept in a child’s crib in the same room as myself. I put him to bed on Friday last at eight o’clock; he was then well and happy. I went to bed at five minutes past eleven, but previously looked at deceased, who was asleep. Mrs Kent came and kissed the children before I was in bed. I awoke at five o’clock in the morning; the nursery-door was a little open, and I immediately missed the deceased from his crib. The impression of his body still remained, and the bedclothes were placed neatly, as if I or his mother had done it. The night-shirt and flannel waistcoat I put the child to bed in were gone; the piece of flannel produced does not belong to the house. On missing deceased I went to his mother’s room, expecting she had taken him when I was asleep. Not finding him there, I searched through the house and grounds. In the drawing room I noticed impressions of foot-marks like a man’s boot with hobnails, but I could not discover any foot-marks on the lawn outside. I am a light sleeper, and generally hear any movement of the children or cries. Mr and Mrs Kent slept on the same floor as myself, and the deceased and a little girl in my room. On the second floor slept two elder girls in the same bed, and Constance, another girl, in a room by herself. The cook and housemaid also slept in one bed, and William Savile, a boy 15 years of age, in a room by himself. A watch-dog is loose at night, and can roam round the back of the house; I did not hear the dog bark on Friday night.

Thomas Sanger, yeoman, of Road, said – On Saturday morning last I went with others to Mr Kent’s premises, at 8 o’clock; I searched through the shrubbery for the deceased child; on passing the privy I noticed some blood of a dark colour on the floor, and went in; I raised the lid of the privy and sent for a light; on passing my hand in the opening I felt a blanket, which I pulled out, and then discovered the body of deceased, dressed in a night shirt, and lying across the splash board on his side; the board prevented the body falling lower down; I observed a wound in deceased’s throat, and blood and soil over the body; we wrapt the body in a blanket and carried it into a kitchen; I and some other men emptied the fall of the privy, but found nothing uncommon in it.

Stephen Millett, butcher, of Road, deposed – I am parish constable of Road; having heard of the murder of the deceased, I went on Saturday morning to the premises of Mr Kent, and made a search with a view to find anything that the deed might have been effected with, but was not successful; outside the privy I found the bloody piece of paper produced; on the floor were about two table-spoonsfull and some spots of blood.

Mr Joshua Parsons, surgeon, of Beckington, deposed – On examining the body of deceased I found two superficial cuts on the left hand; the throat was cut from ear to ear; every structure down to the spine was severed. I also found a stab made with a long and strong-pointed instrument, which passed through the cartilages of two ribs, the diaphragm, and wounded the external coat of the stomach. I should say death had taken place quite five hours before I saw the body (shortly before 8). I am of opinion that the murder was committed at an early hour of the morning, from the rigidity of the body. It would take five hours to produce that stiffness. A sufficient quantity of blood on the blanket, and the floor and wall of the water closet, has not been accounted for, as would have flowed from the body, if the throat were cut in the closet – (Hear, hear, from a Juryman) – as blood from the arterial vessels would have produced a greater quantity of sparkles on the wall, than have been spoken of. If a quart of blood had been accounted for, it would not have been the whole of the blood in that child. The body was drained from the cut in the throat; if there had been any blood in the body, I should have found it.

By the Jury – I do not think the child had a blow in the head before its throat was cut; if it had I should have seen the mark.

Mr Superintendent Foley, of the Trowbridge police stepped forward and said – Permit me, Mr Coroner, to reconcile the apparent difference in the evidence respecting the quantity of blood found in the closet, and to do so, I will state the condition in which I found the soil in the vault. I was the first who disturbed the soil; no one touched it till I did. When I first examined the vault, I found a large quantity of paper, as much as would cover this table (about two yards in circumference), nearly covered with blood; below was four or five feet of water. I have no doubt whatever that the murder was committed in the closet, and that the child was brought there alive.

The Coroner (to the Jury) – Gentlemen, I believe you have heard all the evidence I think it necessary to take in this-

The Foreman – Mr Coroner, there is a feeling among the jury that they wish to hear other witnesses. As foreman, I give expression to their wishes, but I do not think anything further will be elicited by so doing.

The Coroner – I don’t think any additional evidence will throw a light on this mystery.

A Juryman – It is the opinion of the majority of the jury that the two younger members of the family should be examined.

The Coroner – I cannot see the slightest utility in it, and if you can do anything to spare the feelings of the family you should do it. If any practical good were likely to arise from the examination of those children it would be proper to examine them, but I cannot myself see that any such result would be arrived at. I think you would be inflicting a great deal of pain upon the family by so doing. (Disapprobation in court).

A Juryman – The majority of the jury think it highly proper that they should be examined.

The Foreman – I should be sorry to have it done.

A Juryman – I think it highly proper to examine them. We are here to give satisfaction to the public as well as to ourselves.

The Coroner – I have no objection, only I do not think you will gain anything additional by it. If you think it desirable, have you any objection to examine them at the house, instead of bringing them here? (Signs of disapprobation in court).

The jury did not object to that course, and proceeded to the house, where, in the kitchen, the following witnesses, deceased’s brother and sister, were examined.

Constance Emily Kent, sworn, said – I am 16 years of age, and am sister to the deceased. I knew nothing whatever of his death, until he was found. I retired to bed about half-past ten o’clock on Friday night last. I did not hear anything during the night. I slept soundly. It was between eight and nine o’clock on Saturday morning when I first heard anything about the occurrence. I arose at half-past six in the morning. I did not leave my bed, or hear any noise, or anything unusual until then. I know nothing whatever of the murder. I know of no particular disagreement in the house between the members of the family. I have found the nursemaid generally quiet and attentive, and perform her duties in every respect as could be wished.

A Juryman – I do not think suspicion can attach to the nurse, after what this witness has said of her. She confirms the nurse’s evidence in every respect, as to her kindness to the deceased.

The juryman was proceeding further to comment on the evidence when he was stopped by the Coroner.

William Saville Kent, sworn, said – I am 14 years of age, and brother to the deceased. I retired to bed on Friday night last, at half-past ten o’clock. I slept all night soundly, and got up at seven o’clock the following morning. I did not hear of this circumstance till I was coming out of my room. I did not get out of my bed at all during the night of Friday. I did not sleep on the same floor as the deceased, but the floor above. I know nothing nor heard anything of this circumstance till the morning – I wish I had. The deceased was a great favourite with all. I have always found the nursemaid very kind and attentive. I know nothing whatever of the murder.

By Capt. Meredith – I do not sleep with my bedroom door locked; but I did lock it last night from fear.

The jury then returned to the Temperance Hall, no other evidence being desired.

The Coroner, in summing up, said it was necessary and very proper for the jury to divest their minds of every impression made upon them by an occasion of this sort, because they were bound by their oath to decide alone by the evidence before them. The evidence had been entered into very minutely and they had heard what each witness had stated, and cross-examined some of them upon their evidence. It appeared that this deceased child had, on Friday night, been placed in a cot in a bedroom at the house, on a blanket, and covered with a sheet and a quilt. He was in better health and better spirits than usual, it appeared from the nurse, who put him to bed about half-past seven, she retiring, as was her custom, about eleven. The door of the room had been in the habit of being left open, for the purpose, is seemed, of Mrs Kent visiting the child, to see if it were in a state of safety. Mr and Mrs Kent were left sitting in the drawing-room, as was their habit; and the housemaid, after seeing all the doors and windows fastened safely, retired to rest.

Well, the whole family retired to bed, and it appeared the nursemaid, who had been harder worked than usual, possibly slept more soundly that night. She had said that she was generally a light sleeper, and that if any of the children had cried during the night she should have heard them. It was necessary to mention here that this servant slept on a bed, and the deceased was in a crib, and another child slept in another crib in another part of the room. She heard no noise whatever during the night, and when she awoke the following morning, about 5 o’clock, on looking into the crib she saw the deceased child was not there, that the blanket had been taken away, and the coverlid carefully folded down. The impression of the child still remained in the mattress and pillow, and no appearance of the slightest struggle was perceptible. In consequence of the loss of this child, it was very natural that a very close inquiry should be made, in order to see what had become of it.

The jury would recollect that the drawing-room door was not only locked and bolted, but the shutters were barred, so that it was impossible for any one to have gained ingress from the outside; and besides, there were no holes in the shutters from a centre-bit or otherwise, nor was the woodwork injured. The servant, however, found the door ajar in the morning, the iron bars unloosed, and the window open about a foot. Possibly someone unlocked and unbolted the door, and unfastened the window; but whether this was done for the purpose of carrying the child through, did not appear.

A great outcry was made that the child was lost, and by-and-by some men were employed to search the premises, and on going into the water-closet, some blood being perceived upon the floor of that closet, a further search was made, and one of the men, on putting his hand through the hole of the closet, discovered the body of the deceased as described, attired in his night-dress, and wrapped in a blanket. There was not room between the front of the closet and the board of the floor for the body to descend, and consequently it was prevented, which led to its being discovered. It was doubtless the intention of the individual who brought the body there that it should go to the bottom, for the purpose of secrecy; if it had gone to the bottom it would not have been seen, and its discovery would consequently have been delayed. There seemed to be some sprinkling of blood upon the floor in the front of the closet. If the blows had been inflicted in the closet, there must have been some blood in other parts of it, if in the house there must have been appearances of blood in some place or other besides in the closet; but he was inclined to believe that the blows had been inflicted in the closet; and, if so, it was possible for an individual to staunch the blood which flowed from the wounds with the blanket in which the child was found wrapped.

The wounds, as they had heard, were a large gash in the throat, extending from ear to ear, a penetrating wound in the chest, and two small cuts, only skin deep, on the fingers of the left hand, but these latter had nothing to do with the cause of death. The surgeon said that he saw the deceased on Saturday morning, and that he was then quite dead and stiff, the stiffness of the limbs resulting from the natural rigidity of the muscles, and that he should consider he had been dead five or six hours. He also told them that he perceived a wound in the throat, extending to the vertebrae of the neck, and one in the chest, in a slanting direction, as if made with a sharp instrument, and penetrating the diaphragm (commonly speaking, the midriff), or coating of the stomach.

Then it appeared some footsteps had been seen on the carpet in the drawing-room, but that did not result in anything; they had been accounted for by persons going in and out on the morning of the discovery. Then with regard to the difference of opinion respecting the quantity of blood; Mr Parsons was of opinion there was not a sufficient or adequate quantity of blood accounted for which the child had lost. He (the Coroner) thought there was a great quantity on the blanket, and other articles of linen; and Mr Foley accounted for the discrepancy by saying that he was the first to examine the vault of the closet, and that there was a great quantity of blood there.

In conclusion the Coroner said – Gentlemen, this is a most mysterious and atrocious murder, committed by some person or persons; but I fear it will not fall to your lot, under the present aspect of the case, to criminate any person or persons. The cause of death is apparent to you; but the mystery lies in this – What cause or motive could have induced the perpetrator of the deed to have murdered a child three years and ten months old in this way? If a woman had an illegitimate child, she may be induced to kill it, for the purpose of concealing her shame from the world – there you have a motive, or cause, which you are not startled at. And, again, if a midnight burglar enters your house, and commits murder, it is for the purpose of enriching himself with your property – there again you have a cause or motive. And as in this county, where children are poisoned by their parents for the purpose of just saving them from the cost of their maintenance, you have there a cause or motive.

Now it seems to me that some one might have secreted themselves in the building, and, having some malicious feelings towards any members of the family, for the purpose of wreaking their spleen or vengeance, they may have taken this little boy, out through the drawing room to the closet, there murdered him, and cast him in, with the object of concealing the body. It would, indeed, have been malicious to have wreaked vengeance in this manner on an innocent child of those tender years; what offence could it have offered to anyone? But this is only supposition; we have no proof of it; the matter remains in the deepest mystery. It is the most extraordinary and mysterious murder – for I call it murder, and the circumstances which have been brought under your consideration justify me in saying so – I say, gentlemen, it is the most extraordinary and mysterious murder that has ever been committed, to my knowledge. It would, I know, have been satisfaction to you, as it would have been to me, to have traced this crime to the perpetrator of it, that you may have had the satisfaction of being the means of sentencing that person, or those persons, to the condign punishment to which they would be so rightly entitled. But as you cannot do that, you will, possibly, return as your verdict, that this murder has been wilfully committed by some person or persons unknown.

A Juryman – There is a strong suspicion on my mind, for it is clear no-one could have got into the house from outside.

The Coroner – Whatever suspicion you may have in your mind must not influence you in giving your verdict. You must remember that suspicion is not proof. We have no direct evidence before us whatever, circumstantial or otherwise, and you must, therefore, decide upon that which is before you, and that alone. I have no doubt on my mind but that sooner or later the mystery in which this crime is at present enveloped, will be cleared away, and the author or authors of it be brought to light; for if no mortal eye saw the deed committed, the eye of Providence saw it, and punishment will await the guilty.

The Jury fully concurred with the Coroner, and returned a verdict of, “Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown.”

The Jury were then discharged, and the vast crowd dispersed, manifesting audible signs of disappointment at the escape of the guilty party or parties inculpated in the commission of this horrid deed.

The police are actively engaged in the matter, and no doubt the mystery will be shortly unravelled. On Tuesday, at the urgent request of Mr Kent, a body of Wilts police, under the direction of Mr Superintendent Foley, renewed the search of the premises and grounds adjoining.

Notes

A highly mysterious affair, this would be a case that rumbled on in the headlines around the country for a considerable time. Indeed, this case has gone down in the annals of crime, not so much for the cold-blooded murder at its centre, but for the inadequacies in police-detection that emerged. Initially the investigation was carried out by an agglomeration of local magistrates and police officers – none of whom had ever experienced any case like this – and all of whom were subject to the restrictions of the class system under which they all lived. There was a considerable delay between the event happening and a full search and full questioning of all witnesses/suspects taking place, primarily because of the restriction a working-class police force felt against intruding into the house of an upper-middle-class family.

As a result of this reluctance to impose themselves upon the family, an early suspicion fell against Elizabeth Gough, nursemaid, who was sleeping in the room adjacent to the child, and she was taken into custody. It seemed obvious from the voiced suspicions of the Jurymen that the nursery-maid, or some other servant, must be guilty – such being their narrow-minded class-inspired view of the matter.

By the end of July, an elder daughter of the family, Miss Constance Kent, was garnering suspicion, and anecdotal evidence given that her father was prejudicial against the older children in favour of the younger children of his second marriage. Mr Kent had, in fact, taken up with his housemaid as his wife was dying. There was also a detail that Constance asked the housemaid whether she had left her purse in her nightdress – so that she knew where the offending dress was – and then asking the maid to bring her a glass of water – giving her time to remove said dress, helped weight suspicion against her, though apparently this did not convince the law.

At the end of August, nothing more having occurred, Edmund John Gagg, formerly of Portsmouth, admitted the murder, but after lengthy and costly investigation was found to be a fraudster – having abused his wife and forced her to leave with their children – he was sent to poor-law in Westminster as being unable to support himself. At about the same time, an Irish labourer wrote to Inspector Wolfe claiming to have assisted Constance Kent in the murder and offering to supply the errant nightdress if he were provided with the cost of travel to do so.

In October of 1860, Elizabeth Gough was again the choice suspect, and was charged with murder though not pursued. Another investigation was started in November, and irregularities in the original inquest were brought to light, such that an affidavit was rendered to re-open the inquest, a case heard at the Queen’s Bench in December 1860, and further in February of 1861 when the imputation against George Sylvester, the Coroner, was discussed by their Lordships, and eventually discharged.

It is obvious from reading the Coroner’s inquest report, as compared with many others in this collection, that George Sylvester was dealing with a crowded court of highly agitated whispering locals, and a Jury of local bigwigs who errantly thought they knew more about it than the Coroner himself. The only mistake the Coroner might be accused of was the taking of evidence from two of the children, and going to the actual scene of the crime to do so, but given the huge interest of the local crowd, this was an understandable error.

Over the following month or two, a Mr Saunders, a magistrate, appears to have held a continuing investigation of his own private making, hearing various witnesses in the Temperance Hall of the village, with a stranger, a Mr Pollacky, apparently a private detective, making notes of all that went on and travelling to make his own enquiries.

In the end, it was daughter Constance Kent who, in 1865, made confession to an Anglo-Catholic priest, who then took the basic confession to a magistrate, and brought Constance to the Assizes, where the Catholic priest claimed the sacredness of the Confession for his giving no further evidence – a point which raised uproar in a country but recently giving house-room to Catholicism again. It was seen as a grave thing that a religion should be allowed to avoid the rigours of law in this way. The issue was saved by Constance pleading guilty to the murder of her half-brother.

Constance was sentenced to Death, but this was commuted to Life in prison, and she served 20 years in various prisons, emerging aged 41 in 1885. Whilst in prison she produced a number of mosaics for church altars. In 1886 she emigrated to Australia, where her brother William was on the Fisheries Board of Tasmania, and trained as a nurse, changing her name to Ruth Emilie Kaye, working at The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne; as a sister-in-charge at Coast Hospital, Little Bay, Sydney, for ten years at Parramatta Industrial School for Girls, and then twenty years as matron of the Pierce Memorial Nurses’ Home at East Maitland, New South Wales. She retired in 1932, and died 10 April 1944 aged 100, in Sydney.

The case has been widely used as the inspiration for books and drama, including the “Christmas Party” sequence in the 1945 film Dead of Night, in Wilkie Collins’s The Moonstone, and Kate Summerscale’s non-fiction work The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, which was subsequently made into a TV drama.

© http://www.salisburyinquests.wordpress.com, 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to http://www.salisburyinquests.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

I acknowledge with thanks the permission of Salisbury Journal to reproduce their materials on this blog.