James Stevens - continued by Rosemary Peeling from where we left off
“James Stevens was duly condemned to death by hanging on Tuesday March 6th 1906 …….

Almost as soon as James Stevens had descended the steps to the cells there was a flurry of activity; the newspapers were hot off the press with the news of the verdict.  The ‘Daily Mail’ ran a campaign on James Stevens’ behalf. And the ‘Daily Chronicle’ in a special article wrote -
“One of the first acts of Mr Herbert Gladstone’s rule at the Home Office has taken the shape of a rather sensational interference in a criminal trial, of which more will very probably be heard.  Will there ever be a criminal court of appeal? Such a salutary addition to our judicial administration; is it too much to ask that an innocent man may at least have the benefit of the Scotch verdict. Stevens is either guilty, or he is innocent. If he is guilty The Home Secretary has no business to interfere, there is no room for clemency in such a murder as this. If he is innocent, penal servitude for life is but the commission of another crime - a crime worse than that for which it is now the prescribed punishment.” In reviewing the evidence the ‘Chronicle’ adds: “Accepting the prosecution’s own story that Stevens, a consummate actor - on their showing a cool, level headed man - and a man of terrible nerves - and yet fool enough, after disposing of every other trace of guilt, to leave the basin and towel behind.”

Letters Home
The following letters which were received by James Stevens’ relatives, and which are reproduced literally, are mostly devoted to protestations of innocence :-

Dear Aunt - I am very glad pleasure in writing these few lines in answer to your kind and loving letter I received on Sunday, hoping it will find you quite well, as it leaves me fairly at present. I feel as if my heart will break before long. Dear Aunt, send my love to Rhoda and William, and also the children, Francis, and also to sister Elizabeth and cousin Nellie. My dear Aunt, I am put in this place entirely wrongfully, as God knows I am an inniceont man, charged with some other villains cruel crime, which as taken my dear mother from me forever on this earth, as God our heavenly father, knows I have never hurt a hair on my dear mothers head, and can by the grace of God, say I am entirely inniceont dear Aunt, and shall be very glad to get realesed out from this place which I am put entirely wrongfully with this awful charge preferred against me, in which I am entirely innicent of. Thank God I have the pleasure to say with a good heart I am an inniceont man, and that is the truth and nothing but the truth, which God knows I am an inniceont man put away entirely wrongfully for some other mans crime entirely not yet found. I think this is all I have to say this time - I remain your ever loving cousin and brother, James Stevens, and an inniceont man.

God this is the truth, nothing else but the truth, which I, am glad I can say with a clean heart, not guilty God alone can save his people when the hand of flesh doth fall, but Gods strength never fails, praise God - James Stevens.
Give this letter to Aunt Charity pleas William as I have addressed wrong, I meant the adress for her. Lewes Prison. January 8th 1906.

Dear Friends - write these few lines hoping that they will find you all much better than you were last time. Dear Friends, it leaves me very much upset, and nigh broken hearted, as I am put in this awful position, as I am perfectly inniceont. Dear Friends, I can truthfully take my gracious King and country’s oath that they have condemned a perfectly inniceont man’s life away, and may my, our most gracious and mercifuly King and country have mercy on me, a poor inniceont son [man], which God alone only knows that I am wrongfuly condemned, and may our most gracious and glorious King and country have mercy, I pray, and save [spare] my inniceont life, which is cruley and wrongfuly condemned. Dear Friends, this is the truth that I have written, and told you all along, and can again have the pleasure of telling you once again, with a clean heart and clear conecience that I am a perfectly [inncocent] man, so I think this is all I have to say at this time.- I remain your ever loving friend, James Stevens. Lewes Prison February 28th 1906

Letters were being sent to the Home Secretary.

The Vicar of Wadhurst [Rev. G. G. Maclean], wrote
“The Vicarage Wadhurst 3rd March 1906
“Dear Sir - As the Vicar of Wadhurst, I have necessarily been especially interested in the case of James Stevens, and cannot but feel greatly distressed at the result of the trial, [which from the fact that the evidence was purely circumstantial], surprised many others more competent than myself to form an opinion as to the prisoner’s guilt. I am sure that I am voicing the feeling of everyone who has given any thought to the matter, in expressing a most earnest hope that the sentence may be commuted to that for manslaughter, partly because there is no reason to think that the murder was premeditated, and partly because James Stevens is so young. Without presuming to pass any criticism on the verdict of the jury, I most sincerely trust that Stevens’ life may be spared, so that he may receive the benefit of such instruction, and such good influences, as may be brought to bear on him during a period of imprisonment.
“I remain Dear Sir
“Yours faithfully, GEO. G. MACLEAN.”

A Juror’s Letter
The following is a copy of the statement which the juror has signed for the consideration of the Home Secretary: - “I was a member of the jury who heard the case of James Stevens, who was indicted for murder at Lewes assizes. Throughout the whole of the evidence and the judge’s summing up, I and several others of the jury had considerable doubt whether prisoner committed the murder. I have since the verdict most carefully and anxiously thought over the evidence that was brought before the court, and I have come to the conclusion that it is exceedingly doubtful as to whether the prisoner committed the crime. I think you will appreciate my feelings in the matter, for I feel that if the prisoner is hanged that I, with the other jurors, shall to a certain extent be responsible for an error of judgment, and I would most anxiously ask you to consider the whole of the facts, with a view to quashing the conviction. I, this morning, consulted my solicitor upon the matter, and acting on his advice I then, for the first time, communicated with Mr. Gower, the solicitor for the defence, and I am now writing, as I think it is my bounden duty to do so.” March 9th 1906

A Fruitless Visit.
On Saturday morning Mrs Laurence of Hervey Street. Tunbridge Wells, a sister of Stevens, visited Lewes for the purpose of seeing him for what she thought would be a last occasion. She informed a “Courier” representative that the Rev. D. J. Strather Hunt paid her travelling expenses to Lewes, but on her arrival at the prison she was refused permission to see her brother, to whom the news of the reprieve had just been communicated. No reason was assigned for the refusal, but it is presumed that having been reprieved Stevens was regarded as an ordinary convict, without the privileges that are usually granted to the occupant of the condemned cell.

The Good News
Following is the official letter communicated to various persons interested, conveying the good news of the reprieve :-
“ Whitehall 2nd March 1906.
“ Sir - With reference to your letter ofcharged with 10 misdemeanour offences, and 4 felony offences 28th ultimo on behalf of James Stevens, who is lying under sentence of death in Lewes prison, I am directed to acquaint you that the Secretary of State has felt warranted under all the circumstances in advising his Majesty to respite the capital sentence with a view to its commutation to penal servitude for life.
“ I am, sir,
“ Your obedient servant, C.R. TROUP “

Pook Pit Cottage - where it all happened

Mr Courthope’s action
We understand that Mr. G. L. Courthope, MP., personally interested himself in the case, and he both wrote to and interviewed the Home Secretary; Mr Courthope would, if necessary, have brought the matter before the House of Commons, but the Home Office decision rendered this unnecessary.

Mr. G. R. Sims’ Defence
Mr. Geo. R. Sims, who was largely instrumental in establishing the innocence of Mr Adolf Beck, found guilty of misdemeanours and felony but later found to be a case of mistaken identity, was a journalist who wrote two articles in the “Daily Mail” in defence of James Stevens. After closely reviewing the evidence he proceeds:-

“The reader will remember that the prosecution fixed the murder at 7.30 in the morning, because up to that time they had evidence that she was alive, and therefore, 7.30 was the latest they could argue around in order to fix the guilt of the mother’s murder upon the son.
“They had to suggest in connection with this theory that the son accomplished this butchery and binding of his mother, removed all traces of the act from his body and clothes, disposed of the weapons used—they were not found—and walked leisurely to his work in a wood lying 180 yards away at the back of the cottage, reaching the spot where his mates were engaged at about 8 o’clock.
“Passing over the unsatisfactory way in which this thesis was arrived at, we know it as a fact that at eight o‘clock he was at work, and that he remained in the sight of his mates until midday.
“The doctor who supplied the medical evidence first saw the body of the murdered woman at 1.35. He said, as the result of the examination, that “She had been dead from three to eight hours.”
“It is from certain conditions of the body—the stiffness and the coldness—that a judgement of this kind is arrived at, but the old woman had lost a large quantity of blood. If much blood is lost the extremities become cold more quickly. Three hours would in this case be much nearer the mark than eight, and as the doctor judged from the condition at 1.30, this would put the probable time of the murder nearer ten o’clock than 7.30.
“Nothing that occurred after 7.45 could involve the accused man. He had an absolutely unassailable alibi from eight o’clock to noon.
“The woman’s boots were still wet at 1.30; she had, therefore, walked about on wet ground during a period not sufficiently distant from 1.30 to allow her boots to dry. This fact points almost conclusively to her having been alive much later than 7.30.
“There was a smear of mud on the woman’s stockings just below the knee. This was presumably caused by the muddy boot of the murderer as he knelt on his victim to bind her. The state of the muddy mark on the stocking at 1.30 was not what it would surely have been if it had been there from 7.30. It showed signs of being much more recent.
“Everything in the evidence pointed to the probability of the murder having been committed later than 7.30. The only scrap of evidence suggested it was earlier than 9.30 was that of Mrs Hemsley, who lived in a cottage forty six yards distant; Mrs Hemsley was in the habit of passing the Stevens’ cottage at 9.30, and Mrs Stevens, if at home, generally came to the door and spoke to her. On this occasion though the door was open, Mrs Stevens did not come out.
“But the great point in favour of the accused was that from first to last the prosecution could not bring forward one scrap of sound evidence to connect him with the deed.
“The few spots of blood on the inside of his wristband and on the inside of his pocket were the prosecution admitted, satisfactorily accounted for. With regard to the wristband stains, the doctor himself said in cross-examination: “The scratches [on the prisoner] corresponded in position with the shirt marks.” The pocket stains were proved to have been made by the blood of a rabbit, the head of which the prisoner had thrust in the pocket in the presence of witnesses.
“The window cord with which the poor woman was bound differed entirely from any cord found in the cottage.
“The accused man had razors in the house. The doctor declared that no weapon found in the house could have inflicted all the wounds on the body: “The wound in the throat could not have been caused by the knife blade produced. The wound in the chin could not have been caused by the razor produced.”
“The accused and his mother were always on the most friendly terms. The judge on summing up, said to the jury: “It was clear that so far as the prisoner’s past went it was perfectly clean, and his relationship with his mother was satisfactory.”
“If the couple were on good terms—the loud talking at 7.30 proved nothing, even if it was the prisoner and his mother, for the latter was rather deaf—there was absolutely no motive for the crime. The poor woman had not been robbed. The accused would not benefit one farthing by her death. She was insured, but her legitimate daughter paid the premium and held the policy. The accused was a quiet, inoffensive, amiable young fellow, quite unlikely to have an attack of homicidal mania or to barbarously butcher a mother with whom he was admittedly on the best of terms.
“His demeanour was consistent with perfect innocence from first to last. Every witness who saw him on the morning of the crime before noon stated that he was not in the least excited or strange in his manner.
“But every witness who saw him after noon, when he discovered his mother’s murder, agreed that he was agitated, shocked and distressed.
“A bloodstained handkerchief lay for everyone to see on the floor of the bedroom. The accused could not have failed to see it. It had undoubtedly been used to wipe one of the weapons with which the murder was committed. If it had been the handkerchief of the accused, would he have left such a damning evidence against himself lying there when he had every opportunity to remove it? - instead of removing it, he bought the police into the room where it was lying, right in the centre of the doorway. It was the handkerchief the murderer had used. But it was not the handkerchief of the accused. That was proved.
“And yet with all this circumstantial evidence in his favour, and nothing against him but the suggestion that he had been talking rather loudly with his mother at 7.30, the jury found him guilty, and the judge as he was bound to do sentenced him to death.
“The Home Secretary has refused to allow the sentence to be carried out, it is to be commuted to penal servitude for life. My own opinion, after a careful study of the evidence, is that The Home Secretary will in due course advise that James Stevens shall be granted a free pardon.
“If there is nothing in the evidence to justify the unfortunate young fellow being hanged, there is nothing in it to justify his being kept in penal servitude.
“But the mystery of the case remains as impenetrable as ever. There was no apparent motive for the woman’s son to murder her, and there was no apparent motive for anyone else to do so. A man was seen to walk quickly away from the neighbourhood of the cottage by one of the witnesses about eleven o’clock. Was he the murderer? If so he had concealed himself somewhere until he thought the coast was clear. But he had stolen nothing, and apparently there had been no struggle of any kind in the death chamber.
“Whoever murdered the poor old woman in her little cottage in Pook Pit, Wadhurst on December 11th last, it is certain that the Home Office does not believe that it was the young man who was to have been hanged yesterday.
“And as they doubt his guilt we may be sure the Home Office authorities will order a complete and searching investigation, and at the earliest possible moment restore an innocent man to liberty.”

On the following day Mr Sims pointed out an omission in his article, namely that on the morning of the murder the frost did not break up till 9.30. Therefore, the wet boots and mud on the woman’s heels pointed to her having been alive after that hour, in which case Stevens could not have been the murderer.

Mr Gower’s Efforts
Mr R. Vaughan Gower, the solicitor for the defence, who is at Eastbourne recuperating from a slight indisposition, has been cordially congratulated on all hands for his unremitting efforts on behalf of his client. Mr Gower has literally left nothing undone on behalf of the accused. It was his able cross-examination in the preliminary hearing at Mark Cross which first weakened the case for the prosecution and the defence in which he instructed counsel at the assize trial demonstrated that Mr. Gower had handled in a masterly manner a case which presented great difficulties. After the conviction Mr. Gower was in constant communication with the Home Office, and drew up a précis of the weak points in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the condemned man. An illiterate and stolid character was, of course very detrimental to his interests. Mr Gower now hopes to carry the case a step further to its logical conclusion, and obtain the release of his client, in whose innocence he has believed from the first.

STEVENS’ FUTURE
Our Lewes representative writes:
“The ultimate fate of James Stevens still hangs in the balance, the Home Secretary having at present done no more than intimate to the gaol authorities at Lewes that the death sentence has been commuted.
“In the mean time Stevens has been removed from the condemned cell, and his two constant attendants have been dispensed with; the prisoner now occupying an ordinary cell, and receiving the usual prison diet.
“He was naturally highly delighted to receive news of his reprieve, but his conversational powers did not allow him to do more than reiterate his protestations of innocence.”

From The Courier April 13th 1906
“After all, James Stevens, convicted of the murder of his mother at Wadhurst, must serve a life sentence of penal servitude. The whole of the facts of the case were laid before the Home Secretary [Mr. Herbert Gladstone] by Mr. Vaughan Gower, with the result that the death sentence was reduced to one of penal servitude for life. Since then persistent efforts have been made to obtain a free pardon, but their failure is shown by the following letter received by Mr. Gower this week:-

Sir,- In reply to your letter of the 23rd ultimo respecting the case of James Stevens, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that having made further inquiries, and having fully consulted the learned judge, he regrets that he cannot recommend any further exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the prisoner’s favour.
O.E.Troup”

The above comes from various newspapers including The Courier and The Sussex Express—but despite considerable effort, it has not proved possible to determine the ultimate fate of James Stevens. The records of Lewes Prison are not to be found in ESRO nor at Kew—so we do not know how long he stayed in prison. No record can be found of his death—so we do not know whether he died in gaol or as a free man. So we can only conclude: ……. RP
Pook Pit Cottage—where it all happened!