Hungerford Arcade “The Mystery of Peppermint Billy”

Here is a question.

What links Hungerford with Van Diemen’s Land and a dreadful double murder that occured at Thorpe End (near Melton Mowbray) in 1856?  Well Van Diemen’s Land is now known as Tasmania and in the early days convicts were sent there.

 

So far so good.

 

But what is the Hungerford connection?

Was the convict from Hungerford and was he responsible for the double murder at Thorpe End?  And was he sent to Tasmania as a punishment instead of being hung?

If only it was that easy.

 

The connection between Hungerford and Van Diemen’s Land and the horrible Thorpe End murders is quite simple.  It is a framed likeness of the Thorpe End Toll House in Leicestershire.

 

 

On Monday the 20^th of February 2017 at about three in the afternoon, I was in the Hungerford Arcade when I  was shown the framed print of the toll house at Thorpe End.

This immediately aroused my interest.  Under the print there was a short description of the dreadful murders which occurred at the toll house on the night of the 19^th of June 1856.  It reads as follows.

 

Thorpe End Toll Bar near Melton Mowbray

PULLED DOWN IN 1875 ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TURNPIKE TRUST

In 1837 this Toll Bar which stood close to the Town near the Thorpe End Bridge, formed one of the scenes in the midnight exploits of the singular and sportive Marquis of Waterford and his noble friends; but on the 19^th of June in 1856 an occurrence of the most fearful nature took place at this Bar in its last and more secluded locality, which was on the Thorpe Road about a mile from the town.

 

Edward Woodcock, an aged and harmless man, keeper of the gate, was in the darkness of night shot dead, and his young grandson, James Woodcock, as he was supposed to be rising from his bed to assist his poor Grandfather, ruthlessly stabbed by William Brown, known in the neighbourhood as “peppermint Billy”, who suffered the penalty of the law, for being the perpetrator of the two murders.

 

I would imagine that the print was likely to have been created locally shortly after the crime was committed.  Somehow this item has made its way to Hungerford and ended up in the Arcade.

 

What is interesting though, is that the convict William Brown (Peppermint Billy) who had just returned from Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) might have been innocent of the crime that he was hung for.  Let’s look at the story from a couple of perspectives.

 

 

William Brown (aka Peppermint Billy) was only thirty-seven when he returned from Van Diemen’s Land after being sent there for stealing from his employer.  He had been transported to the other side of the world to serve a ten year sentence (some sources indicate that this was a thirteen year sentence).  It was reported that during his time there he was committed to a lunatic asylum after being certified insane.

 

When he returned to England in 1856, Brown it was said swore revenge on the person who had helped to send him there.  According to witnesses, he said that he would murder this person to get even.

 

At first Brown lodged with his brother, John and his wife Ann in Leicester (it was rumoured that Brown and Ann had become lovers during this period).  After this his movements became a little more vague although he visited a servant named Amy Moore who directed him towards the Bake House at Timber Hill owned by her husband, William Moore (who appears to been a friend of William Brown).

 

It appears that during his journey to see William Moore,  Brown visited a number of local inns where he was heard to enquire (more than once) whether the local gatekeeper was alone during the night.  The statement of William Moore does not indicate whether he was pleased to see his old friend (Brown) or not.  But Brown was given supper and reappeared the following day and was given breakfast.  On this occasion he left with a Henry Reed (a servant of Moore’s) and he helped Reed in the fields before returning for supper.  Brown was then given one shilling and three halfpence (I would imagine that Moore was trying to get rid of him).

 

He was next reported resting in the field (where he had previously worked) and was last seen walking towards the Thorpe End Toll Bar.  The actual circumstances of the double murder have faded a little into history but it appears that Edward Woodcock (the gatekeeper) was attacked initially.  Brown’s intention was obviously to rob the gatekeeper of the collected tolls.

 

Woodcock was shot and this woke his grandson who ran to assist his aged grandfather.

Sadly, the child was stabbed to death and Brown left the scene of the double murder.

My researches do not indicate whether any money was stolen during the attack.

William Brown was arrested a couple of days later and was hung (in public) for his crime on the 25^th of July 1856 at the County Gaol in Welford Road in Leicester.  This was the last recorded public hanging in Leicestershire.  But the fact that Brown insisted that he was innocent throughout does throw an element of doubt into the proceedings.  You might think that this was a guilty man playing his last card but, as I have already mentioned, Brown had previously spent some time in an asylum.  Did this work against him?

 

My thoughts are that Brown might have not worked alone and that there may have been other assailants.  History places him at the scene but did he fire the fatal shot(s) and did Brown stab the child to death?  One will never know and how reliable were the witness statements?  Did Brown have a history in the area prior to his deportation?  Were there people settling scores with him or was he a convenient stool-pigeon?  He was an ex-convict and did not sound too bright and obviously, he had suffered from mental health problems.

 

What does disturb me about this case was that although he was placed at the scene of the crime there is a question of the legal proof.  Was he was actually responsible for killing the gatekeeper and his grandson?  The other thing that throws doubt on the case was that Brown always declared that he was innocent.  He even protested his innocence when on the gallows.  There have been a number of occasions where men have confessed to their crimes when faced with execution.  If anything, just to make peace with God before their long journey.  Brown did not do this which I find a little chilling.

 

There is one last mystery that I have not been able to answer.  That is how did William Brown come to have the nickname Peppermint Billy?  There are the obvious answers but I think the true reason has been long lost in the deep sands of time.

 

Enough of this doom and gloom!  However interesting it is.  Let’s have some light relief.

We have earned it.

 

You may have noticed that apart from the account of the murder, the Marquis of Waterford gets a mention even though he was nothing at all to do with the crime.

The Marquis was one of those gloriously eccentrics which these islands seem to produce quite frequently.  Take William Bentick the 5^th Duke of Portland who was so shy that he banned people from his home (Wellbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire).  He also decided to live underground and built a number of subterranean rooms which included an underground ballroom and an underground billiards room.  These rooms and others were connected by fifteen miles of tunnels including one that was a quarter of a mile long which connected him with Worksop Railway Station.

 

Or the utterly mad Lord Rokeby who so loved the sea that he would spend hours in the water (his servants often had to drag him unconscious on to dry land).

As he grew older this lovely man had a huge tank with a glass top constructed at his home.  As you can guess he filled it with water and spent a great deal of time in the tank.

He took all his meals in this vast pool which rather embarrassed this family.  He also had numerous drinking fountains installed so he could drink water whenever he felt the need.

Lord Rokeby lived to the age of eighty-eight so he must have got something right.

 

 

The Marquis of Waterford although not as eccentric as others still had his moments and one drunken escapade in April 1837 had heavy connections with the Toll House where nineteen years later the murders took place.  It appears that the Marquis and some of his friends were returning from the races in a rather poor state of repair.  The toll keeper (not the one that was murdered) would not let them back into the town until they paid the correct tolls.  The Marquis and his buddies took offence to this and nailed the toll keeper into his cottage and proceeded to paint the toll gates red (do not ask me where they got the paint from).

 

To make things worse this unruly bunch went into the town and proceeded to paint various things red including the statue of a swan outside of a local inn.  When the local police appeared they too were painted red.  The Marquis when he had sobered up, found himself in a bit of bother and was made to pay for the damage he had caused and apart from getting a smacked hand for being a naughty boy that was all the punishment he received.  Contrast this with the punishment William Brown received for stealing from his employer.

 

As a footnote have you ever wondered how the phrase Painting the Town Red originated?

Well now you know it is surprising what you come across when you are researching an article.

 

Happy Hunting

 

Stuart Miller-Osborne