Isabella Mueller (crime writer)
The public often had mixed feelings towards criminals on their way to execution at Tyburn. Although the accused had committed crimes, many people wanted to watch the executions, particularly if the condemned showed courage and staged their deaths almost as a spectacle. The crowd often showed them sympathy on the way to the execution site and around the gallows. For Elizabeth Brownrigg, however, there was no sympathy whatsoever on the morning of 14 September 1767. She had systematically tortured and abused her apprentices, which ultimately led to the death of one of the girls. The revulsion towards child abuse and murder has not changed over the centuries, and people wished her damnation and hoped she would go to hell. Elizabeth Brownrigg, born in 1720 into a working-class family, married James Brownrigg, a plumber’s apprentice, whilst still a teenager. The couple had 16 children, of whom only three survived to adulthood – such was the high rate of infant mortality at that time. The marriage was a happy one, and James’s business flourished. Elizabeth also ran a successful midwifery practice from her home in Flower-de-luce Court on Fetter Lane in London. She was commissioned by the wardens of the parish of St Dunstan’s-in-the-West to look after the needy women in the workhouse, which she did with great kindness and consideration. To cope with the high demand for her services, she decided to take on an apprentice. Mary Mitchell from Whitefriars was the first unfortunate girl to join the family in 1765. Shortly afterwards, Mary Jones joined them. Both girls suffered frequent physical and verbal abuse and were regularly beaten for the slightest mistakes. At that time, a young person could work for a month with a craftsman or craftswoman, and if both parties were still on good terms at the end of the month, the young person would be bound as an apprentice for several years. At first, Mary Jones was treated well, but once her probationary period was over, the abuse intensified. She planned her escape after noticing that the key was left in the front door overnight, and made her way to the foundling hospital, where a doctor found her covered in bruises and wounds. The governors of the foundling home sent a letter to her husband, James Brownrigg, threatening legal action if he could not explain the girl’s injuries. However, James ignored the letter and the foundling home took no further action. Mary Mitchell also stayed with the Brownriggs for around 12 months before she decided to run away. She was spotted on the street by one of the Brownriggs’ sons, who forced her to return. She was then treated even more cruelly. In the meantime, another poor girl had been assigned to the Brownriggs by the wardens of the Whitefriars district. Fourteen-year-old Mary Clifford joined the household in early 1766. At first she, too, was treated well, but as soon as she was legally bound to the Brownriggs, the serious abuse began. On 12 July 1767, Mary’s stepmother, Mrs Clifford, visited the house. However, she was turned away by one of the servants, who had been instructed to refuse the visit and to deny that the girl was there. Mrs Clifford was not satisfied with this and consulted her husband, whereupon her neighbour, Mr Deacon, instructed one of his servants, William Clipson, to keep watch over the Brownriggs’ house and yard. On 3 August, William saw a badly beaten and half-starved girl in the courtyard and reported this to Mr William Grundy, the overseer of St Dunstan’s, who, together with Mr Elsdale, the overseer of Whitefriars—who knew Mary—went to the house and demanded that the Brownriggs produce Mary, which they did following an altercation. However, William Clipson did not identify the girl in the courtyard as Mary Clifford, but as Mary Mitchell, so Mr Grundy ordered a thorough search of the house, despite threats from the Brownriggs. Mary Clifford was eventually found locked inside a cupboard. Her stepmother described her condition as follows: ‘Her face was swollen to twice its size; her mouth was so swollen that she could not close it; and she had cuts beneath her neck, as if caused by a stick; she could not speak; her shoulders were covered in wounds, and she had only two rags to cover them.’ She was taken to hospital immediately, whilst Mr Brownrigg was arrested; however, Elizabeth and one of her sons managed to escape. Mary Clifford died in hospital on 9 August 1767. The inquest into her death resulted in a verdict of murder with malice aforethought against James and Elizabeth Brownrigg, as well as their son John. An arrest warrant was issued for Elizabeth and John, and notices were placed in the newspapers. Elizabeth and John wandered through London, disguising themselves as best they could, and eventually found lodgings in Wandsworth with Mr Dunbar, who ran a general store. On 15 August, Mr Dunbar read a newspaper containing a notice through which he identified his lodgers as the Brownriggs. He called a policeman, and mother and son were arrested and taken to Newgate Prison. The trial took place during the September sessions at the Old Bailey and was heard on 7 September before Sir Robert Kite. The trial lasted 11 hours, with Mary Mitchell appearing as the prosecution’s main witness. Sixteen-year-old Mary Mitchell had been with the Brownriggs for just under two and a half years and told the court that she had been mistreated immediately after her probationary period ended, and that Mary Clifford had also been subjected to increasing mistreatment after her probationary period ended. Mary Mitchell described how Mary Clifford was struck on the head and shoulders by Elizabeth with a walking stick. She also stated that Mary Clifford “had to sleep on planks in the parlour, sometimes in the hallway and very often in the cellar.” Apparently, the girls were often locked in the cellar at night. A year before her death, Mary Clifford, then aged 15, in desperation due to hunger, broke into a cupboard and was caught. As punishment, she was stripped naked and severely beaten. She was then locked up at night in the dark cellar without any bedding. Mary Clifford, it seems, was also occasionally beaten by other family members. Mary Mitchell recounted how John whipped her on the head and shoulders with a leather belt because she had not made his bed to his satisfaction. This whipping reopened old wounds. Mary Mitchell reported that James had once struck Mary Clifford with an old stove brush, but that this was the only time she had seen him do so. The evidence against Elizabeth was more damning. Mary Mitchell testified that Elizabeth tied Mary Mitchell up in the kitchen when she began to lunge at her. She tied her hands above her head to the water pipe. Mary Clifford was then stripped naked and beaten with a whip until she bled. This phase of beatings began in the spring of 1767 and continued with the use of a special hook in the kitchen for weekly whippings. Mary Mitchell told the court that she and Mary Clifford were effectively prisoners in the Brownriggs’ house. James Brownrigg’s apprentice, George Benham, confirmed much of what Mary Mitchell had said and reported that, following his arrest, James had ordered him to remove the hook from the beam in the kitchen and to burn all the sticks in the house. Elizabeth had also told them and Mary Mitchell not to let Mary’s stepmother into the house should she come, as ‘the girl’s mother was a bad woman and might teach the girl bad things’. Witness statements were also heard from the overseers and the doctor at the workhouse hospital, to which Mary Clifford had been taken after leaving the house. The doctor, William Denbeigh, described: “Her head, shoulders and back were bloody; I pulled down the sheet and found an almost continuous wound from foot to head, scars that looked like cuts all over her body, on her legs and thighs; there was a large wound on one hip.” On 5 August, Mary was taken to St Bartholomew’s Hospital, where the surgeon Mr Young examined her the following day and confirmed the medical findings. In her defence, Elizabeth stated: “I struck her several times, but not with the intention of killing her; the pot falling and its handle striking her neck caused the swelling on her face and neck; I treated the injury three times and applied three plasters to her shoulders.” However, the surgeon, Mr Young, disputed that the injury to her neck had been caused by a pot handle. The Brownriggs called several character witnesses, but the jury did not believe them. At the end of the trial, James and John were acquitted of Mary’s murder but were charged with assaulting and mistreating Mary Mitchell, for which they were later sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of one shilling. Elizabeth was found guilty, and on Friday, 11 September, the judge pronounced her sentence: ‘It is my duty to pronounce the statutory sentence that you be taken from here back to prison, from whence you came; that you be taken to the usual place of execution next Monday, the 14th of this month of September, and there be hanged until you are dead; your body shall thereafter be dissected and anatomised in accordance with the law – and may God have mercy on your soul.’ Thus, on Monday 14 September, Elizabeth was hanged and her body taken to the Anatomical Theatre for post-mortem examination. Her execution drew a huge and hostile crowd. A pastor later noted that the crowd’s unchristian behaviour had shaken him. It appears that Elizabeth was a control freak who sought total influence over the girls through a constant reign of terror. Yet she remained indifferent to their suffering and injuries, whilst at the same time conscientiously fulfilling her professional duties as a midwife. The contrast between her professional concern for the lives of newborns and the brutal mistreatment of her apprentices remains shocking to this day. Although it was not illegal at the time to beat girls, the Brownriggs went to extreme lengths and inflicted unimaginable torment on their victims. However, there is no evidence of sexual abuse. In this respect, Elizabeth Brownrigg stands apart from other historical cases, as her behaviour was based solely on sadistic abuse. This historical criminal case, whose theme of child abuse remains relevant to this day, powerfully illustrates the cruelty of which human beings are capable.
