Читать книгу True Crime Chronicles - Camden Pelham - Страница 79

Table of Contents

THESE men had served their country as soldiers, and it is remarkable that having in that capacity conducted themselves with great bravery, and earned for themselves well-merited rewards, they should afterwards have resorted to such atrocious means of procuring a livelihood, as from this case it will appear they adopted. Having returned to England from the Havannah, where their regiment had been stationed, they obtained their discharge, and determined to commence robbers on a plan of the most infamous cruelty. This consisted in their procuring two young thieves, named Byfield and Mathews, to go before them and to pick pockets; and in case of their being detected and seized, their villanous employers would run up, and by maiming the person holding the boys, generally by cutting him across the eyes, would procure their release. The offence for which they were executed, was committed on the 17th June, 1765; and it appears that a gentleman named Kirby was selected by the gang as a fit object for attack. Mr. Kirby, however, detected Byfield in picking his pocket, and before he could withdraw his hand, he seized him and threatened to carry him before the magistrates. His intention was not to pursue this threat, but in order to terrify the boy, he dragged him a considerable distance through the Strand, where the circumstance had occurred. Carrol soon came up to him, and demanded the boy’s release; but Byfield guessing that he would be permitted to escape, told him to keep off, for that the gentleman would let him go. The answer given by the ruffian was “Damn him, but I will cut him,” and instantly drawing his knife, he gave Mr. Kirby a severe cut over the face. A Mr. Carr at the moment came up to the assistance of Mr. Kirby, and seized Carrol’s arm, and at this instant Kirby, letting go the boy, struck at Carrol; but the blow happening to fall on Mr. Carr’s hand, the villain made his escape. The rogues then ran off towards St. Clement’s church, and escaped through an alley into Wych Street, though closely pursued by the gentleman.

Mr. Kirby now felt great pain, but had no idea that he had been wounded by any sharp instrument; but, putting his hand to his face, he found that it streamed with blood. Going to the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand, Mr. Ingram, a surgeon of eminence, almost immediately attended him; and although the utmost expedition was used in calling in the assistance of that gentleman, Mr. Kirby had lost near two quarts of blood in the short interval.

On examination, it appeared that the wound was given in a transverse direction, from the right eye to the left temple; that two large vessels were divided by it; that there was a cut across the nose, which left the bone visible; and that the eye-balls must have been divided by the slightest deviation from the stroke.

The abominable assassins were very soon apprehended, and found guilty under the Coventry Act, and hanged at Tyburn, July 31, 1765, amid the execrations of an enraged multitude.

The “Coventry Act” is a statute of the 22d and 23d Charles II.; its provision in respect of this crime is to the following effect:—“If any person, on purpose, and by malice aforethought, and by laying in wait, shall unlawfully cut or disable the tongue, put out an eye, slit the nose, cut off a nose or lip, or cut off or disable any limb or member of any subject, with intention, in so doing, to maim or disfigure him, the person so offending, his counsellors, aiders, abettors (knowing of, and privy to, the offence), shall be guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy.” It is called the Coventry Act because it was passed on Sir John Coventry being assaulted, and having his nose slit in the street; and the following anecdote is related of the circumstances under which this outrage was committed.

In the committee of ways and means, in the House of Commons, it had been resolved that, towards the supply, every one that resorts to any of the playhouses, who sits in the boxes, shall pay one shilling; every one who sits in the pit shall pay sixpence; and every other person threepence. This resolution (to which the House disagreed upon the report) was opposed in the committee by the courtiers, who gave for a reason “That the players were the king’s servants, and a part of his pleasure.” To this Sir John Coventry, one of the members, by way of reply, asked “Whether the king’s pleasure lay among the men or among the women players?” This being reported at court, it was highly resented; and a resolution was privately taken to set a mark on Sir John, to prevent others from taking the like liberties.

December the 20th was the night that the House of Commons adjourned for the Christmas holidays. On the 25th, one of the Duke of Monmouth’s troop of life-guards and some few foot, lay in wait from ten at night till two in the morning, by Suffolk Street; and as Sir John returned from the tavern, where he supped, to his own house, they threw him down, and, with a knife, cut the end of his nose almost off; but company coming made them fearful to finish it.

The debates which this affair occasioned in the House of Commons ran very high, and one of the members emphatically called the attack on Coventry “A horrid un-English act.”

The result was that the statute in question was passed.