Extract from Henry’s Trials:
It is May 1860, and the trial of Mary Eugenia Plummer, aged 12, is underway at the Old Bailey. The previous year, Reverend Henry John Hatch had been convicted of indecently assaulting Eugenia and her eight-year-old sister Stephana while they were staying at his house. Henry was locked up in Newgate prison, but his friends, with the assistance of public donations, had instituted a prosecution against Eugenia for Wilful and Corrupt Perjury. It was primarily her evidence that had led to Henry’s conviction. Eugenia's mother, Caroline Plummer is being cross-examined:
Mr James, for the prosecution, now cross-examined Mrs Plummer. In response to his first question:
Mrs. Plummer:
Both on the 25th and the 26th I had no opportunity of being alone with Eugenia, except in the water-closet (The witness spoke this in a loud voice, and she at the same time said “I like to answer firm.” (A laugh in court)) I swear I was not in a bedroom with Eugenia and my husband alone on either of those days. The “other party” was always present.
Mr. James:
Who do you mean by the ‘other party’?
Mrs. Plummer:
Mr. and Mrs. Hatch.
Then, in response to various questions from Mr James:
Mrs. Plummer:
Stephanie never told me in the bedroom that Mr. Hatch had behaved indecently to her. If anyone has said this, it is a deliberate falsehood. I am sure she did not tell me so herself. I swear that I did not walk round the kitchen garden with my husband and my two daughters on either of those two days, and that I told my husband what Stephanie had told me. She had not told me at that time. I may have stated at the former trial that Stephanie told me that Mr. Hatch was dressed, and that he unbuttoned his trousers, but if I did say so it is a mistake of mine. She never did say so. I remember the child told me that she noticed Mr. Hatch had a very shabby nightshirt on, or that it was pieced or mended. I don’t know whether I have mentioned this before, but I was surprised that the child should make such an observation…
But, of course, Stephana had just deposed in her evidence that she had told her mother that Mr Hatch had ‘done’ something to her, and the gardener had sworn that he had seen ‘strangers’ walking around the garden… And now Mrs Plummer started to unravel. In response to an unrecorded question regarding the cab drive back to Paddington and other matters…
Mrs. Plummer:
I don’t know whether my husband stopped the cab and bought me some beer. If he did it was not a criminal thing. I have not had any brandy and water today. I did have some yesterday, if I required it. To-day I have had sherry wine. I cannot remember whether I had any brandy and water yesterday, but I had the day before. I should like to have some brandy and water or sherry now (a laugh). I did not drink beer with the policemen after the conviction of Mr. Hatch. A bottle of stout was sent for, and I drank part of it, and the remainder was left for the policemen…
Having established Mrs Plummer’s alcoholic preferences, Mr James now enquired about the Plummers’ strategy regarding schooling for Eugenia:
Mr. James:
How many schools has your daughter been at?
Mrs. Plummer:
As many as I thought proper to send her to – eight or 10, perhaps. She was only a fortnight at one. It was quite long enough. It is very probable that I threatened to publish a statement that the proprietress of that school had not kept her agreement with me.
Mr. James:
Did she go to school at Southampton?
Mrs. Plummer:
I dare say you know all about it. (A laugh.)
Mr. James:
Why did you take her away from Southampton?
Mrs. Plummer:
Because she was not treated properly. I am a very particular woman, although I do take a little brandy and water and sherry wine, and I should be very glad to give you some if you required it. (A Laugh.)
Surely, Mrs Plummer had already partaken of more than a little brandy and water or sherry wine? In any event, she continued…
Mrs. Plummer:
My daughter was at three different schools in Bath. There was a reason for her removal from each, and, besides, a change does her good. (Laughter.) She told me from the first that she did not like “the Hatches” and she was very anxious to get away. I swear that I did not hear outside that the gardener had been examined this morning. Mr. Plummer read a portion of the report in the newspaper last night. I cannot recollect whether Eugenia told her sister what had taken place during the day in court. I did not object to my child going to Mr. Hatch’s bedroom, because I was anxious that there should not be any jealousy between the two children. My youngest child cannot read. I do not wish to hurry her into education, on account of her health being delicate. I do not go regularly to church or any other place of worship, but Mr. Plummer takes the children to church occasionally. I did not take my children to church during the year 1859, but I am as good as those that do go. I have had a bad foot, and my spirits have been failing since I lost one of my children…
The Plummers had had a daughter, Caroline, a year older than Eugenia, who died sometime after 1851. Nevertheless, Mrs Plummer’s superposition of random thoughts indicates a fairly deranged state of mind. Mr James continued:
Mr. James:
I ask you, without reference to any bodily function, was it your habit as a mother to take your children to chapel or church?
Mrs. Plummer:
No, it was not.
This statement was also in direct conflict with what Stephana had deposed. Mrs Plummer continued to answer various questions:
Mrs. Plummer:
I did not cause the great bell of our house to be rung upon my return home to celebrate the conviction of Mr. Hatch…I should say that both children had told their stories before we arrived at Paddington, but I am certain they had done so before we arrived home. My daughter was never removed from any school on account of misconduct. She was beloved by all. My children have been taught to say their prayers – the Lord’s Prayer (not the belief), the prayer for their parents, and little hymns. My husband used to take the children to church, but he did not go every Sunday, because sometimes he was prevented by weather or some other cause.
This concluded the examination of Mrs Plummer, and the court was adjourned. No doubt Mr James was quite satisfied that he had shown Mrs Plummer (or rather she had shown herself) to be hysterical, unbalanced and a very poor parent. Eugenia, at the age of twelve, had already been to eight or ten schools – two for no longer than two weeks. Stephana, at eight years old, could neither read nor write (by contrast, Lucy Hatch, four months younger, could read and write – she and Eugenia used to play a spelling game in the Hatches’ bed in the morning). Mr James had also shown that the Plummers, Caroline Plummer in particular, were guilty of two cardinal sins among respectable Victorian gentlefolk, they did not attend church – and took no care that their children should attend – but worse than that, they were fond of alcohol. And it was clear that Mrs Plummer was intoxicated while she was in the witness box.
The fourth day of the trial, Saturday, May 12th, opened with the examination of the hapless Thomas Plummer, husband of Caroline Plummer and father of Eugenia and Stephana. He provided his evidence in response to various questions from the defence:
Thomas Plummer:
I reside at Holcroft House, Wiltshire, and am possessed of considerable property. I am a member of the Church of England, and my daughter Eugenia used to attend before this. I took my daughter to Mr. Hatch’s in consequence of an advertisement. I and my wife first took Eugenia on 11th August. While we were having lunch, something was said about my daughter being petted, and either Mr. or Mrs. Hatch said she should be treated the same way Lucy was. I went into Eugenia’s bedroom, and my wife complained that it was very close and wished there should be a ventilator, but Mrs. Hatch said she thought the door being left open would be sufficient. I and my wife went again with the youngest child on 25th August, and I remarked that either Mr. or Mrs. Hatch was with us the whole day, and Mrs. Plummer had no opportunity of speaking alone to Eugenia, except by going to the closet. I observed this particularly at the time. I did not observe anything particular when they came out, but while we were walking on the front lawn Mrs. Plummer told me that my daughter said that Mr. Hatch was a disgusting man. Nothing more occurred until after we had got into the fly with the two children, [on the 26th August, the following day] when Eugenia gave a narrative of what had taken place during her stay at Mr. Hatch’s. The children spoke to their mother, and not to me. It is not true that I and Mrs. Plummer drank porter with the cabman on our way to the Paddington station, or that we admitted him into any equality with us…I swear I did not…The moment we arrived at Swindon we sent a message to Mr. Gay, our medical man, and Mr. Pratt, our solicitor, requesting them to come to us immediately, and they both came in the course of the day, and my daughters repeated the same story they had told my wife in the cab on the previous evening…[The stories of the two children] did not differ in the slightest particular…I don’t remember that the children complained of any other sort of unkindness. I consulted my solicitor as to what was best to be done and he gave me advice what course to adopt, and in consequence of what he said I consulted Messrs Humphreys and Morgan, the eminent solicitors, and discussed the matter with them, and I subsequently addressed a letter to the Bishop. Mr. Pratt wrote the letter, and I signed it. A day was subsequently appointed for an investigation by the magistrates at Wandsworth, but on the day it was to take place we were told that we need not attend, as Mr. Hatch had resigned his situation. I did go to London notwithstanding, and obtained a warrant for his apprehension…I never made it a habit, even in [Eugenia’s] early days, to let her sleep in our bed. I never knew [the children] to surprise me whist I was dressing. I know they were not acquainted with children of vicious habits. I know they were never permitted to mix with the grooms or man-servants. The [children] never had a brother.
(This last evidence was provided to demonstrate that Eugenia and Stephana could not have learned about male sexuality at home; the most compelling argument of the prosecution in the first trial, and the defence in Eugenia’s trial, was to question how the children could have known about the details of the charges they alleged, unless they had experienced them as deposed.) Mr Plummer was now cross-examined by Mr Giffard, and in answer to sundry questions:
Thomas Plummer:
Nothing had been told me to lead me to believe anything improper had been done to the children, except the expression, that Mr. Hatch was a disgusting man, down to the time when we left the house. We did not think there had been anything serious at this time, and did not consider it right to ask Eugenia for an explanation. I am quite certain I heard nothing else before the children were taken away.
Regarding the door from Eugenia’s bedroom to the passageway – the door Eugenia had said was locked with a bath against it:
Thomas Plummer:
On the 26th August I cannot recollect whether the bolt was against the door. I will swear it was not open. I now recollect I did go through the door. I have made a mistake in saying it was closed.
(So the door was not locked or blocked with anything; and this was on a day when the Hatches could not have known that the Plummers were going to visit them.)
At this point, the newspaper reports of Thomas Plummer’s evidence are confused. Among the other information regarding the Plummers’ behaviour gleaned as a result of The Detective’s investigations, one of the cab drivers who took them from Wandsworth to Paddington, either on 25th or 26th August, must have come forward with a story. More than once on the journey, the Plummers had stopped to get porter; Mrs Plummer had already been questioned on this and had implied that it was true, although Mr Plummer had denied drinking with the cab driver. The prosecution now questioned Mr Plummer on this. According to The Times, The Morning Star and The Morning Post, he said that: "We might have stopped twice while we were going from Mr. Hatch’s to Paddington to get porter, both on the 25th and the 26th." However, The Observer reported him saying: "I will swear that we did not have porter brought to the cab. I will swear that Mrs. Plummer never stopped the cab at the Bayswater-road, or had porter brought to us."
The report in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper probably reflects what was actually said. It reported Mr Plummer saying: "The cab might have been stopped twice to get porter as [we] were going from Mr. Hatch’s to Paddington Station. [I] would not state that [my] wife did not stop the cab on both occasions, and order [me] to get beer."
The distance from Wandsworth to Paddington is around five miles. At the time, the journey by cab took no longer than an hour, so Mrs Plummer must have been very thirsty indeed to have insisted that they stop twice for refreshment on the way…
Mr Plummer continued with his evidence; in response to various questions from the prosecution:
Thomas Plummer:
We had only one female servant at Holcroft, and she did not live in the house. A charwoman used to come occasionally. We employed a gardener but he did not live in the house. I should say that servants had not refused to live in the house with us, but I would not swear it was not the case. I paid £5 to one servant [Phoebe Easell] because she fancied she was ill-used…my wife used to beat her…but she used to steal things from us…She said that Mrs. Plummer struck her, and I believe that she did touch her. (A laugh.) My wife did not strike her with a poker – it was with a candlestick. (A laugh.) I paid the doctor’s bill.
Poor old Thomas Plummer! Did he realize what a laughing-stock he had made of himself and his wife? A man of ‘considerable property’ had no live-in servants? And Mrs Plummer’s weapon of choice was a candlestick rather than a poker? In addition to that, it was clear that Mrs Plummer had a drink problem.
The defence, however, were not finished with their witnesses; next on the stand was Mr John Gay. He was the Plummers’ doctor, aged thirty-nine, whom Eugenia ‘planned to marry’ when she was seventeen. He went to the Plummers’ residence in Wiltshire on 27th August. The elder child told him of the treatment she had received from Mr Hatch. She said that he had ill used her, and then went into ‘a detail of the various acts of indecency that were the subject of enquiry’. The younger child made a similar statement to him. He had known Eugenia from birth, and he had ‘frequently joked with her and called her his little wife’, although he denied that they were ever formally betrothed. He never saw anything improper in her conduct, and he had not the slightest reason for considering her otherwise than a truthful and a good child. He examined her and observed ‘slight marks of violence…’
Under cross-examination by Mr James, he stated that he was not a trustee to Eugenia. He was on very intimate terms with the family (dealing with Mrs Plummer’s victims?), but he had never dined at Mr Plummer’s house. They did not keep a regular servant; the only domestic in the house was a charwoman. He said he was ‘quite sure that he stated at the last trial that there were marks of violence’. Mr James was referring to the shorthand writer’s notes and pressing Mr Gay on this point, when he (Mr Gay) fainted, and was removed from the court into the open air! This was all very interesting, because according to the records, Mr Gay was not called as a witness during the first trial. A key witness fainting in the middle of cross-examination could be construed as being somewhat suspicious (even though the judge commented upon the oppressive heat in the courtroom), and this was the doctor who had performed intimate examinations of the eleven-year-old Eugenia while calling her his ‘little wife...’
Henry's Trials is available in 'Google Books', where it is possible to read around 25% of the book on line as a taster. Click on the button below to open Henry's Trials in a new window.
Where to find the book...
Copies of Henry's Trials can be found in the Chelmsford Central Library and the British Library at King's Cross; see the 'shop' page for methods of purchase.
It is May 1860, and the trial of Mary Eugenia Plummer, aged 12, is underway at the Old Bailey. The previous year, Reverend Henry John Hatch had been convicted of indecently assaulting Eugenia and her eight-year-old sister Stephana while they were staying at his house. Henry was locked up in Newgate prison, but his friends, with the assistance of public donations, had instituted a prosecution against Eugenia for Wilful and Corrupt Perjury. It was primarily her evidence that had led to Henry’s conviction. Eugenia's mother, Caroline Plummer is being cross-examined:
Mr James, for the prosecution, now cross-examined Mrs Plummer. In response to his first question:
Mrs. Plummer:
Both on the 25th and the 26th I had no opportunity of being alone with Eugenia, except in the water-closet (The witness spoke this in a loud voice, and she at the same time said “I like to answer firm.” (A laugh in court)) I swear I was not in a bedroom with Eugenia and my husband alone on either of those days. The “other party” was always present.
Mr. James:
Who do you mean by the ‘other party’?
Mrs. Plummer:
Mr. and Mrs. Hatch.
Then, in response to various questions from Mr James:
Mrs. Plummer:
Stephanie never told me in the bedroom that Mr. Hatch had behaved indecently to her. If anyone has said this, it is a deliberate falsehood. I am sure she did not tell me so herself. I swear that I did not walk round the kitchen garden with my husband and my two daughters on either of those two days, and that I told my husband what Stephanie had told me. She had not told me at that time. I may have stated at the former trial that Stephanie told me that Mr. Hatch was dressed, and that he unbuttoned his trousers, but if I did say so it is a mistake of mine. She never did say so. I remember the child told me that she noticed Mr. Hatch had a very shabby nightshirt on, or that it was pieced or mended. I don’t know whether I have mentioned this before, but I was surprised that the child should make such an observation…
But, of course, Stephana had just deposed in her evidence that she had told her mother that Mr Hatch had ‘done’ something to her, and the gardener had sworn that he had seen ‘strangers’ walking around the garden… And now Mrs Plummer started to unravel. In response to an unrecorded question regarding the cab drive back to Paddington and other matters…
Mrs. Plummer:
I don’t know whether my husband stopped the cab and bought me some beer. If he did it was not a criminal thing. I have not had any brandy and water today. I did have some yesterday, if I required it. To-day I have had sherry wine. I cannot remember whether I had any brandy and water yesterday, but I had the day before. I should like to have some brandy and water or sherry now (a laugh). I did not drink beer with the policemen after the conviction of Mr. Hatch. A bottle of stout was sent for, and I drank part of it, and the remainder was left for the policemen…
Having established Mrs Plummer’s alcoholic preferences, Mr James now enquired about the Plummers’ strategy regarding schooling for Eugenia:
Mr. James:
How many schools has your daughter been at?
Mrs. Plummer:
As many as I thought proper to send her to – eight or 10, perhaps. She was only a fortnight at one. It was quite long enough. It is very probable that I threatened to publish a statement that the proprietress of that school had not kept her agreement with me.
Mr. James:
Did she go to school at Southampton?
Mrs. Plummer:
I dare say you know all about it. (A laugh.)
Mr. James:
Why did you take her away from Southampton?
Mrs. Plummer:
Because she was not treated properly. I am a very particular woman, although I do take a little brandy and water and sherry wine, and I should be very glad to give you some if you required it. (A Laugh.)
Surely, Mrs Plummer had already partaken of more than a little brandy and water or sherry wine? In any event, she continued…
Mrs. Plummer:
My daughter was at three different schools in Bath. There was a reason for her removal from each, and, besides, a change does her good. (Laughter.) She told me from the first that she did not like “the Hatches” and she was very anxious to get away. I swear that I did not hear outside that the gardener had been examined this morning. Mr. Plummer read a portion of the report in the newspaper last night. I cannot recollect whether Eugenia told her sister what had taken place during the day in court. I did not object to my child going to Mr. Hatch’s bedroom, because I was anxious that there should not be any jealousy between the two children. My youngest child cannot read. I do not wish to hurry her into education, on account of her health being delicate. I do not go regularly to church or any other place of worship, but Mr. Plummer takes the children to church occasionally. I did not take my children to church during the year 1859, but I am as good as those that do go. I have had a bad foot, and my spirits have been failing since I lost one of my children…
The Plummers had had a daughter, Caroline, a year older than Eugenia, who died sometime after 1851. Nevertheless, Mrs Plummer’s superposition of random thoughts indicates a fairly deranged state of mind. Mr James continued:
Mr. James:
I ask you, without reference to any bodily function, was it your habit as a mother to take your children to chapel or church?
Mrs. Plummer:
No, it was not.
This statement was also in direct conflict with what Stephana had deposed. Mrs Plummer continued to answer various questions:
Mrs. Plummer:
I did not cause the great bell of our house to be rung upon my return home to celebrate the conviction of Mr. Hatch…I should say that both children had told their stories before we arrived at Paddington, but I am certain they had done so before we arrived home. My daughter was never removed from any school on account of misconduct. She was beloved by all. My children have been taught to say their prayers – the Lord’s Prayer (not the belief), the prayer for their parents, and little hymns. My husband used to take the children to church, but he did not go every Sunday, because sometimes he was prevented by weather or some other cause.
This concluded the examination of Mrs Plummer, and the court was adjourned. No doubt Mr James was quite satisfied that he had shown Mrs Plummer (or rather she had shown herself) to be hysterical, unbalanced and a very poor parent. Eugenia, at the age of twelve, had already been to eight or ten schools – two for no longer than two weeks. Stephana, at eight years old, could neither read nor write (by contrast, Lucy Hatch, four months younger, could read and write – she and Eugenia used to play a spelling game in the Hatches’ bed in the morning). Mr James had also shown that the Plummers, Caroline Plummer in particular, were guilty of two cardinal sins among respectable Victorian gentlefolk, they did not attend church – and took no care that their children should attend – but worse than that, they were fond of alcohol. And it was clear that Mrs Plummer was intoxicated while she was in the witness box.
The fourth day of the trial, Saturday, May 12th, opened with the examination of the hapless Thomas Plummer, husband of Caroline Plummer and father of Eugenia and Stephana. He provided his evidence in response to various questions from the defence:
Thomas Plummer:
I reside at Holcroft House, Wiltshire, and am possessed of considerable property. I am a member of the Church of England, and my daughter Eugenia used to attend before this. I took my daughter to Mr. Hatch’s in consequence of an advertisement. I and my wife first took Eugenia on 11th August. While we were having lunch, something was said about my daughter being petted, and either Mr. or Mrs. Hatch said she should be treated the same way Lucy was. I went into Eugenia’s bedroom, and my wife complained that it was very close and wished there should be a ventilator, but Mrs. Hatch said she thought the door being left open would be sufficient. I and my wife went again with the youngest child on 25th August, and I remarked that either Mr. or Mrs. Hatch was with us the whole day, and Mrs. Plummer had no opportunity of speaking alone to Eugenia, except by going to the closet. I observed this particularly at the time. I did not observe anything particular when they came out, but while we were walking on the front lawn Mrs. Plummer told me that my daughter said that Mr. Hatch was a disgusting man. Nothing more occurred until after we had got into the fly with the two children, [on the 26th August, the following day] when Eugenia gave a narrative of what had taken place during her stay at Mr. Hatch’s. The children spoke to their mother, and not to me. It is not true that I and Mrs. Plummer drank porter with the cabman on our way to the Paddington station, or that we admitted him into any equality with us…I swear I did not…The moment we arrived at Swindon we sent a message to Mr. Gay, our medical man, and Mr. Pratt, our solicitor, requesting them to come to us immediately, and they both came in the course of the day, and my daughters repeated the same story they had told my wife in the cab on the previous evening…[The stories of the two children] did not differ in the slightest particular…I don’t remember that the children complained of any other sort of unkindness. I consulted my solicitor as to what was best to be done and he gave me advice what course to adopt, and in consequence of what he said I consulted Messrs Humphreys and Morgan, the eminent solicitors, and discussed the matter with them, and I subsequently addressed a letter to the Bishop. Mr. Pratt wrote the letter, and I signed it. A day was subsequently appointed for an investigation by the magistrates at Wandsworth, but on the day it was to take place we were told that we need not attend, as Mr. Hatch had resigned his situation. I did go to London notwithstanding, and obtained a warrant for his apprehension…I never made it a habit, even in [Eugenia’s] early days, to let her sleep in our bed. I never knew [the children] to surprise me whist I was dressing. I know they were not acquainted with children of vicious habits. I know they were never permitted to mix with the grooms or man-servants. The [children] never had a brother.
(This last evidence was provided to demonstrate that Eugenia and Stephana could not have learned about male sexuality at home; the most compelling argument of the prosecution in the first trial, and the defence in Eugenia’s trial, was to question how the children could have known about the details of the charges they alleged, unless they had experienced them as deposed.) Mr Plummer was now cross-examined by Mr Giffard, and in answer to sundry questions:
Thomas Plummer:
Nothing had been told me to lead me to believe anything improper had been done to the children, except the expression, that Mr. Hatch was a disgusting man, down to the time when we left the house. We did not think there had been anything serious at this time, and did not consider it right to ask Eugenia for an explanation. I am quite certain I heard nothing else before the children were taken away.
Regarding the door from Eugenia’s bedroom to the passageway – the door Eugenia had said was locked with a bath against it:
Thomas Plummer:
On the 26th August I cannot recollect whether the bolt was against the door. I will swear it was not open. I now recollect I did go through the door. I have made a mistake in saying it was closed.
(So the door was not locked or blocked with anything; and this was on a day when the Hatches could not have known that the Plummers were going to visit them.)
At this point, the newspaper reports of Thomas Plummer’s evidence are confused. Among the other information regarding the Plummers’ behaviour gleaned as a result of The Detective’s investigations, one of the cab drivers who took them from Wandsworth to Paddington, either on 25th or 26th August, must have come forward with a story. More than once on the journey, the Plummers had stopped to get porter; Mrs Plummer had already been questioned on this and had implied that it was true, although Mr Plummer had denied drinking with the cab driver. The prosecution now questioned Mr Plummer on this. According to The Times, The Morning Star and The Morning Post, he said that: "We might have stopped twice while we were going from Mr. Hatch’s to Paddington to get porter, both on the 25th and the 26th." However, The Observer reported him saying: "I will swear that we did not have porter brought to the cab. I will swear that Mrs. Plummer never stopped the cab at the Bayswater-road, or had porter brought to us."
The report in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper probably reflects what was actually said. It reported Mr Plummer saying: "The cab might have been stopped twice to get porter as [we] were going from Mr. Hatch’s to Paddington Station. [I] would not state that [my] wife did not stop the cab on both occasions, and order [me] to get beer."
The distance from Wandsworth to Paddington is around five miles. At the time, the journey by cab took no longer than an hour, so Mrs Plummer must have been very thirsty indeed to have insisted that they stop twice for refreshment on the way…
Mr Plummer continued with his evidence; in response to various questions from the prosecution:
Thomas Plummer:
We had only one female servant at Holcroft, and she did not live in the house. A charwoman used to come occasionally. We employed a gardener but he did not live in the house. I should say that servants had not refused to live in the house with us, but I would not swear it was not the case. I paid £5 to one servant [Phoebe Easell] because she fancied she was ill-used…my wife used to beat her…but she used to steal things from us…She said that Mrs. Plummer struck her, and I believe that she did touch her. (A laugh.) My wife did not strike her with a poker – it was with a candlestick. (A laugh.) I paid the doctor’s bill.
Poor old Thomas Plummer! Did he realize what a laughing-stock he had made of himself and his wife? A man of ‘considerable property’ had no live-in servants? And Mrs Plummer’s weapon of choice was a candlestick rather than a poker? In addition to that, it was clear that Mrs Plummer had a drink problem.
The defence, however, were not finished with their witnesses; next on the stand was Mr John Gay. He was the Plummers’ doctor, aged thirty-nine, whom Eugenia ‘planned to marry’ when she was seventeen. He went to the Plummers’ residence in Wiltshire on 27th August. The elder child told him of the treatment she had received from Mr Hatch. She said that he had ill used her, and then went into ‘a detail of the various acts of indecency that were the subject of enquiry’. The younger child made a similar statement to him. He had known Eugenia from birth, and he had ‘frequently joked with her and called her his little wife’, although he denied that they were ever formally betrothed. He never saw anything improper in her conduct, and he had not the slightest reason for considering her otherwise than a truthful and a good child. He examined her and observed ‘slight marks of violence…’
Under cross-examination by Mr James, he stated that he was not a trustee to Eugenia. He was on very intimate terms with the family (dealing with Mrs Plummer’s victims?), but he had never dined at Mr Plummer’s house. They did not keep a regular servant; the only domestic in the house was a charwoman. He said he was ‘quite sure that he stated at the last trial that there were marks of violence’. Mr James was referring to the shorthand writer’s notes and pressing Mr Gay on this point, when he (Mr Gay) fainted, and was removed from the court into the open air! This was all very interesting, because according to the records, Mr Gay was not called as a witness during the first trial. A key witness fainting in the middle of cross-examination could be construed as being somewhat suspicious (even though the judge commented upon the oppressive heat in the courtroom), and this was the doctor who had performed intimate examinations of the eleven-year-old Eugenia while calling her his ‘little wife...’
Henry's Trials is available in 'Google Books', where it is possible to read around 25% of the book on line as a taster. Click on the button below to open Henry's Trials in a new window.
Where to find the book...
Copies of Henry's Trials can be found in the Chelmsford Central Library and the British Library at King's Cross; see the 'shop' page for methods of purchase.