steamboat, intending to destroy my life, but the Almighty would not let me do it." He began to sob, and spoke in broken sentences, and at intervals. I said, "Let us hope it will all turn out a delusion." He said, "You can take my charge in writing." I did so from his dictation, and he signed it. "I, William Sheward, of Norwich, charge myself with the wilful murder of my first wife. (Signed) W. S." He was then placed in one of the cells at the station. He was in a very distressed state of mind, but was quite sober, and knew what he was saying. The next morning I went to his cell. On coming out I said, "Do you recollect what you said last night?" He said, "Yes, perfectly well." I said, "Will you give any particulars as to when and how it was done ?" He said, “Yes, I will. It was on the 15th of June, 1851." I said, "How could that be? how was it the body was not discovered ?" He said, "The body was cut up, and I believe a portion of it is still preserved with spirits of wine at the Guildhall, Norwich. You will find it is quite true; they know all about it at Norwich." I asked him how or where the body was found. He said, "Oh, don't say any more; it is too horrible to talk about." He also said, "I went last night to a house in Richmond-street, Walworth, where I first saw my first wife; that brought it so forcibly to my mind that I was obliged to come to you and give myself up." He said he kept the Key and Castle public-house, St. Martin's-at-Oak, Norwich, and that he had kept a pawnbroker's shop for fourteen years, and was living at St. Martin's-at-Palace at the time of the murder. I placed myself in communication with the Norwich police. On the second examination on Thursday, the 7th of January, he asked if he had made use of the word wilful. I said, "Yes, he had.” He said, "That is all I have to ask."

Cross-examined. I asked him if any thing had occurred, and said that perhaps he was labouring under some delusion in consequence of the statement he had made. This was just before he had produced the razor. He said he had had no food for two days, and that he could not eat. I offered him some food and some coffee. He drank the coffee, but would not eat. He seemed very much depressed in spirits, and after he was in the cell moaned and sobbed. He came to me at half-past ten. I have been an inspector for two years. I have heard that it is a very common thing for men to give themselves up on charges, but I have had no experience either personally or at my station.

Charles Johnson.-I am a wood-dealer, thirty-four years of age. I lived at Trowse in 1851. In the summer of that year my dog found a human hand in Lakenham-lane, also called Miss Martineau's-lane. The dog found it in a small plantation just off the road at Bracondale. It is about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street, Norwich (where the prisoner lived at the time). I showed the hand to my father, he took it to the police-station. It had finger-nails upon it. I went afterwards in the following week to the police-station and saw it. I made search in different parts. My dog found two other pieces of flesh in the Hellesdon-road, about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street in the other direction. I was with the police at the time, and they took possession of them.

Daniel Johnson.-I am the father of the last witness. I remember a portion of a human body being found in the way described, and noticed that it was a hand. I gave it to the police at the Guildhall.

Richard Fryer, station-master at Sevenoaks station, in Kent.-I was living in Norwich in 1851. I knew a young man named Robert Field, since dead. At that time he was clerk to Mr. Merry. He lived on the road from Bracondale to Carrow-bridge. I remember, Sunday afternoon in July of that year, I went to

Mr. Merry's with Field. His garden bounded St. Peter's, Southgate Churchalley. We found a human hand. It was lying in some long grass among some trees, in an advanced state of decomposition. I think it had been lying there a long time. It was a left hand. The ring finger was missing at the second joint. I took it to the Guildhall and left it there. Any one going up Church-alley could have thrown it into the spot where it was found. The hand was not a very small one for a female, as far as I can remember.

Thomas Dent, living at Trowse, Millgate, a woolstapler, said his dog found a foot in the fence on a Sunday in June, 1851. The dog found another piece of bone in the plantings. They were taken to the police-station at the Guildhall, and were found in Martineau's-lane.

Henry Layton, a greengrocer, living in Finsbury, London, in 1851 was living in Southgate Church-alley, Norwich, and worked at the mills near the Abbey. Remembered a little boy coming to him. In consequence of what the boy told him he went into the churchyard, and saw a foot, a little decomposed; it had been there some time; took it to the Guildhall.

Samuel Moore proved finding pieces of human flesh and a small bone in Strowger's-field, opposite St. Augustine's Church, in June, 1851, witness being then a night watchman. He gave them to the police.

John Flaxman, who was a police-constable in June, 1851, was at the station when a human hand was brought there, and was employed to search for other portions of a body. Searched in Strowger's-field and found three pieces of human flesh there, and brought them to the Guildhall. The constables who were with him are since dead. In his opinion the flesh came from the breast of a woman. Cross-examined.—I believe a shirt with some blood on it was brought into the station, but I did not see it. I heard it was brought about the time I was searching. I also heard a sleeved waistcoat was brought in; I did not see it. The second officer in command at the station was Sergeant Peck, he is alive.

William Neave found two pieces of flesh, part of the breast and the navel, near Strowger's-field, and took them to the station.

Charles Grimes, living at St. Martin's-at-Oak in 1851, heard of the finding of a hand and of bones on the Sunday and of a foot on a Wednesday. Went into a field opposite Reynold's-hill, on the Aylsham turnpike-road, and picked up two pieces of flesh on the hedge.

Ambrose Andrews was playing with two other boys in June, 1851, in a field called Money-box, and found three pieces of flesh.

William Futter, a police-constable of the Norwich force in 1851, remembered a hand being brought to the station in June, 1851. Afterwards searched Martineau's-lane, found a piece of flesh on the bank facing the lane, and took it to the station. Searched Hangman's-lane, and in a field, now called Heigham-road, found a piece of flesh, six inches long and two wide, just over the bank. There was some hair on it, sandy, of the colour of a sovereign.

Cross-examined.-I heard of a bloody shirt being brought to the station, but did not see it. I do not recollect about a sleeved waistcoat nor about any cotton wool brought in with some of the bones.

Charles Forster found in June, 1851, in Hangman's-lane, now Heigham-road, four pieces of flesh-a large piece and three smaller pieces. Gave the large piece to the inspector, which, in his opinion, came from the lower part of the belly, and buried the other three.

James Carter found a piece of human flesh at the towing-path of the Aldercar

against Trowse-eye, about a mile and a half from Tabernacle-street, and took it to the police-station. A medical man in Surrey-street examined it in witness's

presence.

Robert Leach spoke to finding flesh in Stronger's-field on a Tuesday and Wednesday in June, 1851.

66

Charles Walter Sales.-His father in 1851 was one of the scavengers of Norwich. Witness was employed in clearing out some cockeys" in Bishopgatestreet, which is a continuation of Tabernacle-street. They were large iron grates in the nature of a sink, which could be lifted up. He observed that one seemed as if it were full of blood. His father and he emptied the soil with the blood, and carried it to Bull-close (where the refuse was thrown). Next day Sturges, the constable, called on him, and his father and he went with him to the place where they had thrown the soil and blood, and after searching found a piece of a woman's breast and entrails. Sturges took them away. That "cockey" was about 300 yards from Tabernacle-street.

Cross-examined. There were at that time two other "cockeys" in Tabernacle

street.

Sturges was then called, and spoke to the visit paid by him in company with Sales and his father, mentioned above. He said a nipple was on the piece of the breast.

In cross-examination he said that, though on duty as a constable at the station at the time, he did not remember any thing about a shirt or waistcoat being brought in, nor about a placard being posted up.

James Palmer, who was mowing in a field adjoining Hellesdon and Aylshamroads with two partners in June, 1851, saw one of his partners pick up a piece of thigh-bone with a small quantity of flesh on it, but did not know what had become of it. His partners were both dead.

John Stone also proved finding a piece of human flesh in Reynold's-field, and seeing a man who was with him, and was since dead, pick up a bone.

Edward Peck, an inspector of police in June, 1851.—I remember a large quantity of human remains brought to the station. I saw two hands, a thigh-bone, part of the back-bone, and the pelvis, as well as many portions of flesh. I did not observe any with the nipple on, but did notice that which had the hair. The flesh and bones were put into spirits of wine. I was not present at the examination by the medical man. There were no other human remains at the station but these. People brought many articles, such as bones of animals, &c., to the station, but they were rejected. There was great excitement at the time. I saw a shirt brought into the station, by whom I do not know. It was very dirty, and had blood on it, but not very much. I do not know where it was found. I also saw a sleeved waistcoat, a very old and tattered one. I did not observe any blood upon it. The remains spoken of were kept about a month in the vessels (earthen and glass) in which they were deposited, and then I buried them in a vault under the Guildhall. They were afterwards exhumed in my presence from the same place. They are the same remains. I thought the hands and feet were rather small. Lime was poured into the hole over the jars, which were uncovered. I have charge of them now.

Cross-examined.-There was some waste cotton such as is used for cleaning machinery brought in. I do not think it was smeared with blood, but I do not recollect this, nor who brought any of them. I remember that a handbill wa printed and exhibited in the shop-windows offering a reward. It ran thus:

"City of Norwich.-Supposed Murder.-Several parts of a human body, &c., supposed to have been recently murdered, and to be that of a young female between the ages of sixteen and twenty-six years, having been within the last few days found in the environs of the City of Norwich, information is requested to be given to the Chief Constable, at the police-office, Guildhall, Norwich, of all females who may have been recently missing, together with any particulars which may lead to the detection of the person or persons who committed it," &c. Several applications were made to us about females who were missed. I have some faint recollection that a young girl from a factory was said to have been absent, and that her friends had not heard of her for some time.

Charles Johnson, recalled, said he was present when a man's black satin waistcoat was found near where he found the hand. It was not a sleeved waistcoat. William Peter Nichols, surgeon, in Norwich.-I remember being called in in June, 1851, to examine some remains. I have examined some remains recently, and think they are the same. On the 21st of June I had the assistance of Dr. Dalrymple and Mr. Norgate. We examined them together. The dorsal and lumbar vertebræ, the right os innominatum, the sacrum, a portion of the left thigh-bone, the right tibia and fibula, the left fibula, the right hand, the right foot, a portion of the right humerus, one patella, and various portions of muscle and skin. Some portions of flesh and bone did not belong to the same person, but several did, and we confined our examination to those portions alone. There were no human bones except those which belonged to one body. As far as I could judge, all that was ascertained to be human flesh and human bone seemed to belong to the same person. I cannot call to my mind any portion with the nipple of the breast attached. As to the pelvis and part of the thigh-bone, I can come to the conclusion that they belonged to a female. As to the cartilage hanging to the bone, it was that of an adult female. We came to an approximate opinion as to the age of the female. It was an adult, a female, and an appearance of youth, showing it was not an old female. I think in my affidavit I swore to the age as twenty-six. The well-filled understructure of the skin, the delicacy of the skin, the foot of a person not accustomed to hard labour or to wear heavy shoes -the footnails being trimmed, clean, and in good condition, as well as those of the hand-led me to that conclusion. The appearance of the skin and of the flesh is not inconsistent with the age being fifty-four. I should say she must have been in good health from the well-sustained structure of the flesh. I think a woman who has had a family would probably exhibit more symptoms of aging than one who has not. This person must have had a very delicate skin and a very fair complexion-a sort of complexion generally accompanied with fair hair. It struck me that the feet, the hands, and the pelvis had been immersed in some fluid, possibly hot water, but not a corrosive fluid. We had only a portion, about half, the pelvis. It seemed to have been rudely sawn through, first in one direction, then the other, in two places which did not meet, and then it was broken up. This is not the way it would be done in a dissecting-room. The woman could not have been more than five feet one or two inches.

Cross-examined.-It might be four or five inches shorter. We came to the conclusion as to the age, twenty-six, because the bones were perfect and in a normal condition. There was no appearance of disease, and they were in a healthy condition. The first foot I saw indicated a death within a week. I saw it, I think, on the 21st of June. I made my affidavit on the 26th. I have no doubt I did say the individual to whom these remains belonged might have been

dead a fortnight. I did not know when the murder was committed. My impression is that Dr. Dalrymple and Mr. Norgate had the same opinion as to the time of death. I did not test the weight of the bones. Those of an old person are considerably lighter than those of a young one, but not between the ages we are speaking of. I cannot say whether the colour of the bones of a person of the age of fifty-four would lose the ivory character which those of a young person would have. I did not see the placard or handbill.

Re-examined. I first saw the remains on the 21st, and made my affidavit nearly a week after, on the 25th. The adult state goes on from twenty-six years of age for twenty years. I should not expect the abnormal state of the cartilage so early as fifty-four, not till after sixty. My opinion as to the age resulted from all the matter brought before me.

To the Judge. It was the skin which induced me to think it was the body of a female. I cannot undertake to say unequivocally that the flesh was that of the body of a female. I have no doubt it was the pelvis of a female, and I adhere to all that I have stated on this subject in my affidavit.

Dr. Dalrymple, who was practising as a surgeon in 1851, and examined certain portions of a human body, in company with the last witness, said, On the first occasion I saw nine or ten bones of the back part of the pelvis, the sacrum, a part of the thigh-bone, the large and small bones of one leg, the small bone of another, the kneecap, one or two feet, one hand, the upper portion of the arm, some portions of flesh, and some entrails. It is impossible to say if all belonged to the same person, but the back-bone, the sacrum, and the pelvis clearly did belong to the same person. They joined on and fitted exactly. The other portions might have belonged to the same person. I have no doubt that the pelvis was the pelvis of a woman, and I also believe that one bit of flesh I examined was a portion of the woman's breast. I did not form an opinion as to any person, but I thought it was a full-grown person, and not an old person; there was nothing inconsistent with the portions of the body being portions of a woman of the age of fifty-four.

Cross-examined. I should have said the portions I examined were of a person under fifty-four. I don't say nearer twenty-six than fifty-four. I think about forty to forty-four. A woman is an extremely elastic subject. When I saw the portions of the body, I thought the person had been dead a fortnight or longer. I should have difficulty in saying that all the bones belonged to a female. I can say the hands and feet and thigh-bone belonged to a female.

Re-examined. The general condition of the flesh was that of a person exceedingly well nourished, and the cartilages of the kneecaps, &c., were fresh.

Hannah Laws. I am the wife of a labourer. The prisoner married my aunt. He lived in St. Giles's. Her name was Martha. She was a twin; her other sister was named Mary. She is dead. The prisoner was a pawnbroker. I visited him at St. Giles's several times. My aunt was then living with him. They afterwards went to a private house on Richmond-hill, Beacondale. I think they moved from there to a house under the Bishop's-walls. I was quite a child at the time. I have seen Mrs. Batson, of Hellesdon. I can't recollect her living under the Bishop's-walls. I visited the prisoner and my aunt there just before the Exhibition of 1851. I only went there once. I have never seen her since I visited her there. About twelve years ago I went to the prisoner's house in King-street. I was alone. The prisoner was then living with his present wife. I did not ask any questions about my aunt.