Two households on the Ratcliff Highway, in the Wapping and Shadwell area of London's East End, lost every adult member within twelve days of each other in December 1811. Seven people died: four in the first household on December 7 and three in the second on December 19. A seaman named John Williams was arrested a few days after the second event and died by suicide in custody, before he had been tried. He was never convicted of anything. The magistrates declared him the sole author of both events once he was dead, and much of the public agreed. Historians have since pointed out how little of the evidence against him was tested.
Because no court ever heard the case, every death in the two households is attributed to Williams only.
Ratcliff Highway lay between Wapping and Shadwell, on the north bank of the Thames. The policing of the area was split. The parish of St George in the East, the Shadwell Police Office and the Thames River Police Office at Wapping all had a hand in the inquiries, and the Shadwell office held the formal jurisdiction. This division of responsibility, together with a parish watch of night patrolmen, became a theme of the debate that followed.
The first household was that of Timothy Marr and his wife Celia. In the night of Saturday, December 7, 1811, Timothy Marr, Celia Marr, their infant son and a member of the household named James Gowan died. Another member of the household survived. Four people were dead.
The criminologist Leon Radzinowicz, writing in the Cambridge Law Journal, states that nothing was taken from the premises. About 160 pounds in cash and notes remained in the house. Theft was therefore not the apparent motive, and no motive is on record.
The local officers, the Shadwell magistrates, the parish authorities and the Thames River Police all began inquiries. In the days that followed, the authorities took a number of men into custody on suspicion, and none was held for long. In the House of Commons the following month, Romilly said that forty or fifty people had been apprehended on bare suspicion in the course of the search. He described one case in which a close relative of a victim was held for forty-eight hours on a charge relating to his brother's death. Sheridan said that seven Irishmen had been taken up on suspicion of having foul linen, and criticized the Shadwell magistrates for encouraging prejudice against Irishmen and foreigners.
A Thames River Police magistrate, John Harriott, offered a reward of 20 pounds for information about three men seen near the house. The Home Secretary, Ryder, reprimanded him for exceeding his authority; the Home Office then offered a government reward, which one account puts at 100 pounds, later raised to 500 pounds. In the Commons debate Sheridan referred to a reward of upwards of 700 pounds. The figures given at the time do not agree.
Twelve days later, on December 19, a second household was affected, in the same district, this time that of John Williamson. John Williamson, his wife Elizabeth and Bridget Harrington, a member of the household, died. The couple's granddaughter, who was in the house, survived, as did a lodger, who gave the alarm. Three people were dead.
Two households with seven dead in under a fortnight put the district into a state of fear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Commons that it seemed strange that a single person could be responsible for so much, and Home Secretary Ryder spoke of two whole families lost. The parish of Wapping set up its own night patrols. Magistrates of the Thames River Police Office moved about ten officers from river duty to the streets on Boxing Day, and the officers returned to the river on December 30.
John Williams was a seaman. His birth, family and early life are not on record. In the accounts of the case he was a lodger at an inn in Wapping. One account says he had once sailed with Timothy Marr, and a London writer in 2011 reported a rumor that he held a grudge against Marr from their time at sea; no evidence of such a grudge is on record.
Suspicion fell on him, according to the West India Committee's history of the case, for three reasons: he was seen near the second household before the event, he came back late to his lodging, and he had more money than usual, which he said came from pawning clothes. An item connected with the first household was traced to another sailor at his lodging house. A witness who had seen a man near the second household was unable to identify Williams as that man, and Williams was said to look little like the description. Other people who knew him gave accounts of his behavior and his clothing, which the same account calls circumstantial.
Williams was arrested in late December 1811, a few days after the second event. One account gives the date as December 22; another says about two weeks after the second event. The date is therefore not settled. He was held on suspicion, examined by the Shadwell magistrates, and remanded to Cold Bath Fields prison in Clerkenwell. A second examination was expected on the morning the magistrates met, according to the Kentish Gazette of December 31, 1811, as quoted by the British Newspaper Archive.
No trial was ever held. The Shadwell magistrates, as Radzinowicz's footnotes record, first said it was not yet certain that Williams was the culprit; after his death they concluded that he alone was responsible.
Williams died by suicide in his cell at Cold Bath Fields prison before his second examination. The day is given as December 27 by the West India Committee and by Londonist, and as December 28 by the British Newspaper Archive, which cites the Kentish Gazette of December 31, 1811, reporting that the magistrates had gathered for the examination and were told he was dead. A prison officer reported the death and the prison surgeon pronounced him dead, according to that report.
A coroner's inquest followed. The coroner, a Mr. Unwin, told the jury that all homicide is murder until the contrary is shown, and that the law counted suicide among the gravest forms of it. The jury returned a verdict of felo de se, the legal finding that a person has taken his own life. That verdict concerned the death in the prison; it was not a finding on the earlier deaths in the two households, and no court has made one.
In the weeks after, the authorities treated the suicide as an admission of guilt, a view the West India Committee describes as widely shared. The same history states plainly that Williams was never convicted of murder. The British Newspaper Archive notes that the turnkey reported Williams saying he hoped the innocent would not suffer, and that the "saddle might be placed on the right horse." What he meant is not on record.
The case moved into Parliament within weeks. On January 18, 1812, the Home Secretary, Ryder, moved in the House of Commons for a committee to examine the state of the nightly watch of the metropolis and the adjacent parishes. Abercromby proposed that the committee should also look into the state of the police of the metropolis, and the House agreed.
In the debate W. Smith referred to the family of Mr. Marr as victims whose authors had not been discovered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called Williams the man who had escaped the nation's justice by taking his own life, and disclaimed any intention of criticizing the police magistrates. Sheridan, by contrast, argued that the magistrates had been negligent in leaving Williams without proper watch in custody, and said that the Shadwell magistrates had stirred up feeling against foreigners. J. Stephen defended the authorities, saying they had not gone beyond the law concerning suicides. Sir Francis Burdett argued that police magistrates should be chosen from among the acting magistrates and hold property of 100 pounds a year, and said he would ask for a list of police magistrates to check that the rule had been followed.
Harriott later told the committee that the night-watch system ought to be replaced by a preventive force on the model of the Thames River Police. No new system was introduced at the time, but, the West India Committee adds, many were convinced that reform was needed.
Doubts about Williams's guilt began early. Sir George Stephen, writing in 1836, questioned whether his guilt had ever been established, according to Radzinowicz. Historians have pointed to the points that never came before a court: he had alibis according to two accounts, the evidence was circumstantial, and the one witness who saw a man at the second household did not identify him and said he looked little like Williams. The West India Committee says the authorities believed a second person had been involved but never found one, and that some historians have suggested another sailor who knew Williams. P. D. James and T. A. Critchley's 1971 book on the case argues that Williams was not the guilty party, according to Londonist. The Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, is quoted by the West India Committee as saying that Williams's guilt was still wrapped up in mystery.
The British Newspaper Archive records the opposite view as it was held at the time: a later newspaper report described an "important discovery" of an item in his belongings that many took as proof. It remained a claim of the period, never tested in court.
Attributed, never proven: all seven deaths. No court ever heard evidence, and no court has ever found that Williams was responsible for any of them.
Proven in law: only the coroner's jury verdict of felo de se on his own death in custody.
Dates on which the record varies: the first event is given as December 7 in most accounts and December 8 in one (Londonist), reflecting that it happened around midnight; his arrest as December 22 or about two weeks after the second event; his death as December 27 or 28, 1811; the government reward as 100 pounds, raised to 500 pounds, or upwards of 700 pounds.
Not established: any motive, any link between the two households other than the suspicion against Williams, and whether more than one person was involved.
December 7, 1811: four members of the first household die in the Ratcliff Highway district; nothing is taken.
December 1811: a number of men are taken up on suspicion across the two inquiries; none is tried.
December 19, 1811: three members of a second household die, in the same district.
Late December 1811: John Williams, a seaman lodging in Wapping, is arrested on circumstantial grounds (December 22 in one account) and remanded to Cold Bath Fields prison.
December 26, 1811 (Boxing Day): Thames River Police magistrates move officers to street patrols.
December 27 or 28, 1811: Williams dies by suicide in custody before a second examination. A coroner's jury returns a verdict of felo de se.
January 18, 1812: the House of Commons appoints a committee on the nightly watch and the police of the metropolis.
1836: Sir George Stephen questions whether Williams's guilt was established.
1956: Leon Radzinowicz publishes "The Ratcliffe Murders" in the Cambridge Law Journal.
1971: P. D. James and T. A. Critchley publish their book on the case.