Chapter 2 - a Prequel to the story of Charles Maynard Walker
Chapter 2 – a prequel to the story of Charles Maynard Walker

Charles Walker was born in Yelden, Bedfordshire, on Christmas Eve in 1825. He was the fifth of six children. His father was Thomas Walker, an agricultural labourer from Pavenham, and his mother was Rachael, nee Maynard. [1]
Charles was brought up in the care of the Bedford Charity, also known as the Harpur Trust, which was founded in 1566 by Sir William Harpur and his wife Dame Alice, a philanthropic couple whose mission was to support the education of poor children. He was raised at the Harpur Hospital, and educated at one of the charity's schools. When his education was complete, he was apprenticed to a Bedford baker named Favell Barringer, in St Cuthbert's Street, Bedford. He was listed there in the 1841 census, aged sixteen. Charles claimed that after three years of his apprenticeship he enlisted in the army, but I have found no evidence of his service, and the Bedford Times later commented that they could throw no light on the circumstances of his discharge, if indeed there was one.
By 1845 Charles had returned to Bedford where he began a relationship with a young woman named Ellen Waller. In about June 1845 Ellen fell pregnant, and she was no doubt eager to participate in the draw to be receive one of ten dowries of £20 awarded by the Bedford Charity. Under the terms of their endowment, after the Charity had fulfilled its educational remit, any money left over was allocated to these dowries, to support the 'poor maids' of the town. On 1st January 1846 Ellen found out that she was one of the ten successful applicants. The trustees detailed the recipients in the local newspaper, the Huntingdon, Bedford and Peterborough Gazette. They recorded that Ellen lived in Grey Friars Walk and that she was engaged to Charles Walker, a baker. They were married at the Bedford Registry Office just a few days later, on 10th January 1846.
Charles and Ellen's baby was born two months after the wedding, on 23rd March 1846. He was named Charles after his father, and was given the middle name Maynard after his grandmother. Charles Maynard Walker would grow up to become the first known teasmade inventor. His invention, the Early Riser’s Friend, predated Samuel Rowbottom's Automatic Tea Making Apparatus by a matter of months. But bear with me while I tell you the rest of his father's story. The tale is worth the telling, and makes Charles Maynard Walker's achievements all the more remarkable.
In 1849, three daring robberies took place at three grand Hertfordshire houses, while the victims were asleep in their beds. The first was at the Rectory in Ayot St Peter, home of the Reverend Edwin Prodgers, on Friday, April 20th, 1849. The second was at Hunsdon Rectory, home of the Reverend Richard William Thackeray, on Saturday, April 21st. The third was at Frogmore Lodge, Aston, home of Captain George Isaac Hudson, on Wednesday, April 25th. [2]
The robberies were reported in the Hertford Mercury and Reformer on May 5th 1849. They subscribed to a rumour that the burglaries had been committed by opportunist tramps, but unbeknown to the Mercury, a suspect had been taken into custody the night before publication. The suspect was Charles Wells, born John Wells in 1828 or 1829. He came from a highly respectable family, but had cut himself off from them. He was twenty years old, unmarried with no children, and a warehouseman by trade. He was 5 feet 5 inches tall, with dark brown hair, hazel eyes, an oval face, and a fair complexion, with a stout build and a scar on his right wrist. By all accounts he was intelligent and well dressed, but with the expression of a rabbit caught in the headlights.
Police Constable Francis described how he apprehended Wells.
"About ten minutes to twelve o'clock on the night of the 4th May, while I was on duty at Watton, I heard that Wells was drunk in the village, and going about from one pub to another. Entertaining some suspicions, I apprehended him in the George public house. He was then quite drunk. I later searched him and found a small screwdriver, a bullet mould, a partially used wax taper, a knife blade, and a quantity of lucifer matches in his pockets. I took the shoes off Wells' feet, and from the description I had received from Griffin (Captain Hudson's footman William Griffin), I believed them to be his shoes, the same ones I have produced today, and which Griffin has identified. While I was searching the prisoner, he said, "You've got the right man now." "You don't know what I suspect you of doing," I said. "Oh yes, for breaking into Captain Hudson's house," said Wells. He also said that he had broken into the house of a person named Phillips in the same neighbourhood, and stolen a clock, which he threw in a ditch afterwards because he was finding it cumbrous.
"I took the prisoner to Frogmore the following morning, when Wells was sober, and there Griffin identified the shoes. While Wells was sitting in the cart outside he could see into the dining room, and he said, "That's the cloth I smothered with mustard." He also told me that he gave the dog plenty of meat to keep him quiet. He said that he got hold of three loaded guns from the servants' hall, and that he would have shot any of the family if he had heard them coming. He also told me that if he had met me after he left the house, he would have shot me. "What, even if I hadn't interfered with you?" I asked. "Yes, if I'd met you, I would have shot you," he replied."
That same day, Charles Wells was brought to the County Petty Sessions at the Magistrates Court. On being called to the bar, he asked for the court to be cleared as he had important information to impart to the magistrates in private. As soon as the courtroom had been cleared, he supplied them with several significant leads. Wells was remanded in custody until 12th May while the police followed up the leads, and thankfully, they were able to recover some of the stolen property over the next few days.
Interviews with Wells and investigations carried out by two local policemen, Superintendent Barnes and Inspector Good, revealed more details. Wells boasted that he was a member of a large and daring gang, and one of the most accomplished 'cracksmen' of the day. [3] The gang were well acquainted with Hertfordshire and its neighbouring counties, and had detailed knowledge of many mansions in that area. Wells revealed that they had identified a number of future targets, including three prestigious Hertfordshire mansions: Woodhall in Watton, home of Mr Abel Smith, a highly respected banker, Goldings, near Waterford, home of Mr Thomas Matthias Weguelin, a future Governor of the Bank of England and Liberal Member of Parliament for Southampton, and Bragbury End, near Stevenage, home of Mrs Green, the widow of John Green. The gang were reputedly willing to use violence if disturbed or opposed. [4]
From the moment of his arrest Wells spoke continuously of an accomplice called Charley Watford, who he had met by chance and who had allegedly enticed him to carry out the robberies. Forty-nine year old Inspector Robert Dunn, Superintendent of the Rural Police, took down the description Wells gave of Charley Watford, and set about tracking him down.
Exactly two weeks later, on Saturday, 19th May, 1849, Charles Wells was brought before Hertford County Petty Sessions, to answer the charges of burglary at Frogmore Lodge, Aston. Then the court called Captain Hudson's footman, William Griffin, and Millicent Milton, a housemaid. The Chairman asked whether the prisoner had questions for either of the witnesses. Wells bowed politely.
"Oh no, thank you," he replied, "I don't intend to ask any questions today. I leave that to a future period."
After the remaining witnesses had given their evidence, Wells was committed for trial at the Hertfordshire Summer Assizes, charged with the burglary at Frogmore.
The investigation of the burglaries at Ayot St Peter and Hunsdon took place at the following County Petty Sessions, on Saturday, 26th May, 1849. Wells appeared before the Chairman Thomas Mills, and three other gentlemen, G Brassey, T Kemble, and M H Gosselin. He pleaded guilty to the burglary at Ayot St Peter, and declined to say anything in his own defence, but he pleaded not guilty to the charge of breaking into Hunsdon Rectory and stealing a large single Gloucester cheese. [5]
The Hertfordshire Summer Assizes took place in the Criminal Court on Wednesday, 11th July, 1849, before Baron Alderson, with Mr Rodwell appearing for the prosecution. [6] Again, Charles Wells pleaded guilty to the charges of burglary at Frogmore and Ayot St Peter, but pleaded innocent with regard to the theft of the cheese from Hunsdon. Mr Rodwell, the prosecutor, agreed that no evidence would be offered in relation to the not guilty plea.
Baron Alderson asked Mr Rodwell to summarise the burglaries to which Wells had pleaded guilty. Rodwell replied,
"The robberies in each case were committed under precisely similar circumstances. In each case the house was entered by the cellar, which had been broken open, and the police had no doubt, from the outset, that the robberies were committed by the same persons. They were all committed within a week. I understand that the prisoner had been in a respectable position, and that his friends were respectable. There is no doubt that he had a companion in his guilt, whom he calls Charley Watford, but he has given no information as to the whereabouts of that man."
When the Court asked Wells whether he had anything to say before sentencing, he replied contritely,
"I have been led astray by bad company, and if I had not fallen into the company of the man who was with me when I broke into these houses, I should not have committed such offences. I went into gay company, and was fond of card-playing, but my means would not support that kind of life. I yielded to the temptation offered me, to commit the crimes to which I have pleaded guilty, thinking that they would furnish me with the means of continuing my gay course of life. I am very sorry."
"And what of the burglary at Reverend Thackeray's rectory? Why did you plead not guilty to that crime?" asked the Judge.
"I was not there. I was half a mile away when my companion broke into that house. But I admit that I did partake of the cheese afterwards, my lord."
"There is but one course open to me. The sentence is that you be transported for ten years," pronounced Baron Alderson.
Charles Wells was sent to the Prison Hulks at Woolwich to await transportation.

In the meantime, Charles Walker had set up home in Priory Street, Bedford, where they gave every impression of being a decent young couple. They led their lives quietly enough for three years. Walker was now 24 years old, his wife Ellen was 27, and their little son, Charles Maynard, was four years old. Walker had a considerable reputation for writing moral and religious verse, and had published a small collection of poems. He was no longer a baker, but he was well known in Bedford as a respectable hawker of goods, alternating a few months at home with his young family, and a few months away on the road.
In 1850, some of Walker's neighbours noticed that he was in possession of a quantity of 'valuable property', and suspecting that his sudden good fortune was not acquired by honest means, somebody published an anonymous letter, (probably in the Bedford Times), laying out their concerns. Charles was adamant that he was a very successful hawker, and claimed that he had been left some money by a relation. On 22nd June, 1850, he published an indignant letter in the Bedford Times offering a reward to anyone who would expose the originator of these slanderous accusations, stating that he was fully prepared to prosecute them. If Walker ever found the source of the libel, the Hertford Mercury did not reveal it, and for a few months, everything continued quietly as before.
Meanwhile, the police had continued their efforts to find the mysterious Charley Watford, but to no avail. On the evening of Sunday, 8th September, 1850, Inspector Dunn was passing through a parcel of common land in Bedford known as Hartham meadow, when he noticed a man fitting Wells's description of Charley Watford. Dunn shadowed the man through Hartham, and near the railway station, he entered Wilmot's public house, the Albion. Following him inside, Dunn confirmed that there was a scar on the man's forehead, just as Wells had described. Dunn apprehended him immediately. [7]
The man was in possession of a screwdriver, a partially burnt taper, a box of lucifer matches, a map of Huntingdonshire, and a hawker's licence in the name of Charles Walker, Bedford. Robert Dunn gritted his teeth and sighed. For over a year he had been looking for Charley Watford, and all that time, he should have been looking for Charles Walker.
Four days later, on Thursday, 12th September, 1850, Walker was conveyed to the prison hulks in Woolwich, where Wells identified him as the man he knew as Charley Watford.
Walker was committed and imprisoned at the County Gaol. At first Walker was a submissive prisoner. He only seemed to have one concern. A further volume of his moral and religious verse was currently 'in the press'. Walker's arrest had caused quite a sensation, and he was anxious that the book should be published as soon as possible, so that he could capitalise on his notoriety to promote sales. [8]
Several months passed, while Walker awaited the date of the Lent Assizes in February. He seemed calm and resigned, and there was no indication that anything might be on his mind. Then one night, in the small hours of Sunday, 19th January, 1851, Mr Hollingdale, the night patrolman, was doing his rounds at 1.45am, when a noise caught his attention. [9] Although he could see nothing amiss, he took the precaution of rousing the Governor, Mr S Hatchard, and the other prison officers. When they reached Walker's cell, they noticed that although the serving hatch in the cell door was closed, the spring was not properly caught. The Governor unlocked the door, and the warders rushed in. They found Walker standing by the door fully dressed, holding a skeleton key in his hand. In the cell they found a makeshift rope which Walker had made by tying together his stockings, towel and cravat.
Charles could only have glimpsed the officers' keys for a moment, yet he had memorised the shape sufficiently to create a remarkably accurate copy. He had dug up a piece of old iron wire, probably in the recreation ground, and he had wound a fragment of cotton cravat tightly around it to create the necessary width. That night, he had forced the serving hatch open, and held it closed from the inside with a piece of thread. He had planned to wait until the night patrol had passed his cell, then he had intended to reach through the hatch, and unlock the door from the outside with his key. Then he had accidentally dropped the hatch, and Mr Hollingdale had heard the noise. Walker hurriedly reeled in the thread, but he didn't have time to close the hatch properly. It was a desperate effort. Even if he had got out of his cell, his escape from the building would have been almost impossible.
Charles Walker was tried at the Hertfordshire Lent Assizes on Thursday, 27th February, 1851. [10] The Judge was John, 1st Baron Campbell. The Prosecutors were Mr Rodwell and Mr Gaussen. Campbell had risen to the office of Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench almost exactly a year before the trial, on 5th March 1850. The 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica states,
"On the resignation of Lord Denman in 1850, Campbell was appointed Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. For this post he was well fitted by his knowledge of common law, his habitual attention to the pleadings in court and his power of clear statement. On the other hand, at nisi prius and on the criminal circuit, he was accused of frequently attempting unduly to influence juries in their estimate of the credibility of evidence."
Walker was charged with having broken into Reverend Prodgers' house at Ayot St Peter, and stealing a French clock, a concertina, a silver inkstand, a gold penholder, and a box containing various coins and three medals. Reverend Prodgers was examined first. He said,
"On Friday 20th April I went to bed at eleven o'clock. The house was then secure. The following morning I was called at seven o'clock, and informed that the house had been entered. On going down I went to the drawing room and found the door locked on the inside. On the previous night it was locked outside. I then went outside the window and found the sash thrown up, and a paper knife stuck in the sash to prevent it from being pulled down. On entering the room through the window I found the room in disorder, and the articles mentioned in the indictment were all gone. The grate and cellar window had been torn up, and the cellar window broken up, so that it was not difficult for anyone to enter. I cannot say that I saw the doors safely closed, but it was always my constant custom to see the drawing room door locked on the outside, and the external door fastened."
Charles Wells was next to take the stand. He had been brought back from the Prison Hulks in Woolwich to give evidence. He declared,
"I am undergoing sentence in the Hulks at Woolwich. I pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary at Mr Prodgers' at the Summer Assizes, 1849. On the 20th April 1849 I was engaged at the house of Mr Prodgers in committing a burglary. The prisoner at the bar was with me on that occasion. I had seen him in the course of the afternoon before the burglary, at St Albans. I had no previous acquaintance with him."
Lord Campbell asked how Wells and Walker had met.
"We met at a lodging house, and after sitting for some time, we proposed to take a walk together. We went down the London Road about three or four o'clock in the afternoon. When I found him conversible, I told him I had recently left my friends, was without money, and was determined to have some. He said he was the same, but had property about his person which would fetch some. He said he would turn it into money. As I had a shilling or two of my own, I said there was no occasion, and I would pay for tea for him. He then showed me a couple of diamond rings. I asked him where he got them. He did not satisfy me at the time, but after we had been talking for some time, he told me he had committed burglary for them. He told me that he had spotted a house, meaning that he had looked round it, and that he was going to break it open that night. I agreed to go with him. He did not persuade me. I was equally as bad as him. We then returned to the lodging house and had tea together.
"We remained in the house for some time, and between seven and eight we went to the Hoo, near Welwyn. We arrived at the house of Mr Prodgers about midnight. We walked round the house once or twice, and observed some lights burning, one in the front of the house, and the other at the top, by the side of the house. We waited until one of them was put out. The other continued. We then went to the glass door of the drawing room window to ascertain whether we could affect an entrance there. We found that we could not without making a noise. We then went to the grating in the front of the house, and by our combined strength, broke it open. The prisoner entered, and handed me his boots. After a little while, he came and let me in by the drawing room window. When in the drawing room, I saw a clock on the mantelpiece. I took the glass cover off and laid it down on the table. The prisoner observed an inkstand, which he said he thought was silver, and gave it to me. I put it in my pocket. At this time there was a light in the drawing room, the prisoner having lit a candle belonging to the house with a taper he had with him, before I entered the house. The taper was lit with a match which he had in his possession. The prisoner gave me several boxes, one a papier-mâché knitting box, which I opened with a knife. There were some wooden boxes in that, one cntaining coins, and another beads. I have seen some medals since which I know to be Mr Prodgers' property, which I saw that night."
Three medals were produced, and Wells confirmed that they were the same as those taken from Mr Prodgers' house at Ayot St Peter. One of them featured a particularly distinctive design - a Chinese junk.
"They were, together with a box produced, 'planted' after we left the premises. A gold pencil case was taken from the inkstand. After being in the drawing room half an hour, we left it by the window. The door was then locked on the inside.
"After leaving the house we broke open the concertina box. I took up the clock, which the prisoner said was an encumbrance, too large to carry. He said he thought it was advisable to take the works if we could get them out. We tried this, by smashing the face, but as we could not succeed, we left the clock in a field as it was. We then came on to Welwyn, and from thence to Hertford. We arrived at Hertford about seven o'clock in the morning, and went on to Ware. Two or three days afterwards I came back with the prisoner to Hertford, to the Coachmaker's Arms, where we remained two days. We went from thence to commit another robbery. We remained in each other's company ten or eleven days."
Mr Hawkins, the defence counsel, cross-examined Wells, who replied,
"I have committed three burglaries, that is the outside. I have been in custody for deserting from a man of war, and once for quarrelling. I was in gaol for two months for quarrelling, at Abingdon, about twelve months before the burglary. I have never been in gaol, or charged before Magistrates, with any offence. I went to sea in 1844 having tried several businesses, and not liking any. When I was at St Albans I was in no occupation. I wish not to say where my brother lives, as I should not like him to be disgraced for my crimes. He is a respectable man. I was living with him. He did not turn me out. I stole from him a cheque for £7.10s, and then left him. I remained in London until the money was nearly gone, namely about three or four weeks. I lodged at various places at that time, sleeping in coffee houses, and visiting the Albert Saloon. I cannot recollect the names of the coffee houses where I slept, or of the landlords."
"Did the £7.10s last you for five weeks living in coffee houses?" asked Lord Campbell.
"I lived economically, of course. I could get breakfast in the coffee houses for threepence."
"That will be useful information for the foreigners who are coming over," Lord Campbell interrupted sardonically.
"I walked about London, but having lost my character by my conduct, I did not know what to do for the best. I had no other money than the £7.10s in my possession while in London. After about three weeks I left London, and was about a week on the road to St Albans. I got some money from friends there. I lodged at the lodging house of a person named Matthews, when I met the prisoner. I stayed there about a week and paid 2s for my lodgings. I was forced to be economical, having exhausted my means. I had been at St Albans when I was young, but knew nothing of the neighbourhood. When I left, I only knew I was going on the road to Welwyn by information I received from the prisoner.
"I saw the prisoner for the first time on the afternoon of the day when the burglary was committed. When the prisoner told me he had spotted a house, I did not know what he meant until he explained it. I had not spotted any houses while I was at St Albans. I kept myself close. I did not know what to do... whether to return to my brother and apologise, or not. When the prisoner entered Mr Prodgers' house, I put his boots by the side of the iron gates, to be handy when we came out. I had with me a pair of large shoes that would go over my others, and I put them on, so that my own footmarks might not be traced. I got the shoes from a man at a lodging house either at Redbourn or St Albans. I asked for them, because I wanted to sell my own. It was either at the White Horse at Redbourn, or Mrs Matthews' at St Albans, that I got the shoes. A gold pen and a silver stamp were planted with the medals and boxes, after we left Mr Prodgers'. I pledged the concertina at Edmonton. The prisoner had left me then. I sold the silver inkstand where the other things were sold, at Mr Isaacs', Blue Anchor, Petticoat Lane. I and the prisoner went down Petticoat Lane together. I asked a man where we could get rid of such goods as we had got, and he directed us to Mr Isaacs. I sold the inkstand, and all the property taken from Mr Prodgers', after I separated from the prisoner. It was the produce of a previous burglary that we disposed of together.
"I said what I have stated today before my trial. I told where some of the property was, and tried to restore as much as possible. Before I was committed I gave the name of the prisoner as near as I could. He said his initials were the same as my own, CW. I gave a description of him to the police constable when I was in the gaol. I never made any statements of the kind with a view to reducing the amount of punishment on myself. I never asked for anything of the kind, nor wished for it."
Next, a deposition was produced from Reverend Prodgers' son, Herbert Prodgers. Reverend Prodgers explained that Herbert was presently in Brighton, suffering from great nervous debility due to his protracted studies at Eton, and that it would have been too dangerous for him to travel to Hertford in person. Mr Hawkins objected that the Act was not designed to allow for depositions to be read when the witness was merely suffering from debility, but the Lord Chief Justice decided to accept the deposition nevertheless. The deposition related to the identity of the little box, which Herbert said he had turned himself.
Robert Dunn, Superintendent of Police, was questioned next. He declared,
"The little box produced is the one which Mr Herbert Prodgers said he turned himself. I produce some coins and medals which I received from Charles Inch, on 11th December 1849. I received the box from a woman of the name of Woodhead, whose mother, the wife of the keeper of the Coachmaker's Arms, who had since died, picked it up on those premises. I recollect Wells pleading guilty to an indictment for burglary. I received information from him relative to another person concerned in the burglary, both before and after his trial. He described the person of the man to me, and he was advertised in the Police Gazette.
"On Sunday, 18th September last year, at five or six in the evening, I was in Hartham mead, in this town, and saw the prisoner. I followed, and found him in the Albion public house, close to the railway station. I took him into custody, with the assistance of another constable. I apprehended him in consequence of the description which had been given to me by Wells. I searched him, and found on him a screwdriver, a wax taper, and a box of lucifers, also a purse containing money, two silk handkerchiefs, a map of Huntingdonshire, a hawker's licence in the name of Charles Walker, and some trifling articles. I told him that I apprehended him on the charge of burglary, and I told him that Wells, his mate, had given me such a description of him, that I had been looking for him for some time. I then took him to the police station, where I told him the various charges against him, and amongst them, the burglary at Mr Prodgers'. He said he was innocent, and knew nothing about them.
"On the following Thursday, I took him to Woolwich, and he was there shown to Wells. He was taken into a room in the dockyard, and Wells was brought in. There were six or seven other persons beside myself present. I asked Wells, in the hearing of Walker, whether there was anyone in the room, besides the officials, whom he knew. He said yes, and pointed to Walker. I then asked him whether that was the man he gave me a description of, when he was in Hertford gaol. He said it was. There is a large red scar on the prisoner's arm."
On cross-examination, Wells stated:
"I don't know that the persons in the room in the dockyard when Wells was brought in were not dockyard officers. I don't know what they were."
Finally, he confirmed,
"I never held out any hope of reward, or inducement of any kind to the prisoner."
The next witness was Mary Anne Vyner. She stated,
"In 1849 I was servant at the Coachmaker's Arms in this town. I remember Inspector Dunn coming, and in consequence of something he said, I told him I had seen a man at the house who had some medals, which he threw away in an adjoining field. The prisoner had been lodging at the house, and left on the morning of the day when Dunn came, and another man, who I am not able to say was Wells, was with him. The prisoner showed me some things in a paper, which he said were diamonds, and a ring with a white stone it, which he said was a diamond. He afterwards showed me, at a later period of the same day, some medals."
A court official showed Mary Anne the medal with a raised figure of a Chinese junk upon it, and two others, and she confirmed that she believed them to be the same ones she had scene in the prisoner's possession.
"I asked him to give me one. He refused, and threw them over into Mr Brown's meadow near our back yard. I also saw him with a little round mahogany box, from which he took the ring. The box of Mr Prodgers which was produced earlier is certainly very much like that box. One day, when he was washing, I observed a scar on one of his arms. Walker was about a week at our house before he went away the first time."
On cross-examination Mary Anne added,
"The prisoner did not return to the Coachmaker's Arms after Dunn called. I did not see him again until he was before the Magistrates at Welwyn. I recognised him directly. Our house is a lodging house."
Next, Charles Inch took the stand.
"In April 1849 I was in the service of Mr Brown, who has a field at the back of the Coachmaker's Arms. On 26th April I found four medals in the field. I wrapped them up in a piece of paper, put them in my pocket, and gave them to Mr Brown. He gave me them back the next day, and I gave them to my mother. I know the three medals produced, by marks made upon them when I gave them to my mother."
Superintendent Dunn was recalled to the stand to confirm that it was on 21st April that he had gone to the Coachmaker's Arms.
Charles Inch's mother Mary Anne was questioned next. She stated,
"It was on 26th April that my son brought me the medals produced. I marked them myself, and put them in a drawer. My younger son took one of them out and lost it."
The next witness was James Miller, who said,
"On Sunday 22nd April 1849, I was at Hanscombe's lodging house at Bishop's Stortford, and saw the prisoner there in company with the witness Charles Wells. They came to the house together at about eight o'clock in the morning, and they remained until six o'clock in the evening, going and remaining out for about an hour and a half during church time. They had dinner and bread and cheese together, and left the house together."
George Hanscombe then took the stand, and stated,
"I keep a lodging house at Bishop's Stortford. On the 22nd of April 1849, I saw the prisoner and Charles Wells at my house. I saw them first at about eight o'clock in the morning. They left together in the evening. I did not see them eat together."
On cross-examination he added,
"I had never seen them before, but I was in their company several times during that day."
Continuing his story for the prosecutor, he said,
"They hired one bed for the two, but did not return to occupy it."
The defence pressed him on this point, and he explained,
"It is not an uncommon thing for two strangers to sleep together in a lodging house."
The next witness was John Connor, who said,
"In April 1849 I was lodging at the Coachmaker's Arms in this town. I saw Walker and Wells there. The prisoner, Walker, showed me a gentleman's dress ring, which I believe to have been a diamond one. He asked me to buy it. I refused. He gave as a reason for wanting to sell it, that he and his companion were short of money. Wells was with him at the time. I afterwards saw some medals in the possession of the prisoner. One had the figure of a Chinese junk upon it. On the smaller one produced I made a mark with my nail at the time he showed it to me, and by that I can identify it."
Reverend Prodgers was asked to identify the medals produced.
"These medals are like those taken from my house, but I cannot swear to them. The Chinese junk was the same impression."
George Hascombe was recalled and asked about the prisoner's clothing.
"I think the prisoner had on a shooting coat and a cap when he came to my house. I can't recollect what kind of pattern."
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr Hawkins then addressed the Jury at considerable length, dissecting Charles Wells' evidence and insisting that it could not be relied upon, unless it was corroborated in every detail. Wells may well have told the police that he was with the prisoner at St Albans, but the police had provided no evidence to prove it. Testimony from the witnesses from Hertford and Bishop's Stortford appeared to prove that the prisoners were together after the burglary, but there was no evidence, other than the unreliable evidence of Wells, to show that they were acquainted before. It was improbable that a thief would openly exhibit the proceeds of a robbery on the following morning, unless he was palming off stolen property to implicate another person. Hawkins claimed that if he called witnesses from the town of Bedford, they would confirm the character of the prisoner over a long period of time, and that if the jury took this into consideration, and discarded the evidence from Wells, they would probably decide that there was a great deal of doubt in this case, to the extent that they could not safely return a verdict of guilty.
Mr Hawkins then called three character witnesses. John Dennier, a Bedford grocer, spoke first,
"I have known the prisoner for five or six years. He lived within fifty yards of me in Bedford. His general character and conduct, according to my knowledge and belief, has been perfectly straightforward."
Mr Rodwell challenged him,
"Don't you know that his character has been attacked?"
"I don't know that I have heard it. It has only been from persons on whose words I should not like to rely. There have been reports against him since his committal but I never heard anything against him before. I don't know that he threatened actions against persons for circulating reports against his character. I have heard him say that if he knew who it was that published something against him, he would bring an action against them. That was before his committal. I don't recollect he ever told me the nature of those charges. He said if he knew who had been putting something into the newspapers, he would bring an action against them. I don't know what it was in the newspaper. I never heard anything against his character for honesty before this."
Next to speak for Walker was Mrs Jane Whitehead, a baker from Bedford.
"I have known the prisoner for eight years. His general character has been very upright. I have never heard anything said against him."
Cross examined by the prosecutor she added, "He is a hawker. I don't know what he dealt in. I always considered him a respectable hawker. I never knew him to sell anything."
A third character witness, George Payne, was then called to the stand.
"I am a plumber and glazier in Bedford. I have known the prisoner for five years. I never heard anything against his character."
He too was cross examined by the prosecutor, and added,
"He gets his business by hawking things. I never saw him hawking anything. He was in the habit of being at home for a month or two, and then going away for a month or two."
Challenged by the Judge, he clarified,
"I don't know whether he is gone from home for a month or two, but I see very little of him for that length of time, occasionally."
"You seem to know very little about him," scoffed Lord Campbell.
"He sometimes comes to my shop for squares of glass and paint."
"And you know nothing more of him than that?" queried the Judge.
"Oh... nothing more my lord."
The Jury reassembled for the Judge's summing up.
"This case requires careful and deliberate attention. There is no doubt that Mr Prodgers' house was broken into and robbed. If you, the Jury, believe Charles Wells' evidence, there can be no doubt that the prisoner was one of the persons who committed that offence. But Charles Wells' testimony was that of an accomplice, and I caution you to look upon it with suspicion, and only believe it if it should appear to be corroborated in its material facts. It is your duty to consider whether, without Wells' evidence, there is sufficient evidence on which to convict the prisoner. I will read over the evidence, and I want you to pay careful attention to it. The verdict should be yours, and yours alone. Any observations I make will be for your consideration, but you should act on your own judgement."
Lord Campbell then read over the whole of the evidence in the case, and continued,
"There is no doubt that Wells is a man of bad character, and that before this offence he was engaged in systematic depredations. However, it is for the consideration of the Jury whether he might not still be believed in this case, taking into consideration the manner in which it was given. It is evident that Wells must have been assisted by some person in the burglary, and it must be borne in mind that long before the apprehension of the prisoner, Wells gave a description of his accomplice which guided the police to the apprehension of Charles Walker. It would be for the Jury to consider whether or not this strongly corroborated the evidence Wells had given that day. It was evidently no afterthought which induced Wells to give that evidence, since he described his companion on the very day he was apprehended, and afterwards recognised him amongst a number of persons, as the companion he had described. You should also consider whether the evidence of Mary Anne Vyner also corroborated that of Wells. The prisoner was stated to have shown diamonds to Wells, and he also showed them to this witness. He showed her, too, immediately after the robbery, property which there could be no doubt formed part of that stolen from Mr Prodgers' house. Following the chain of evidence, you will find that the evidence of Mrs Inch and her son corroborated that of Mary Anne Vyner. Next came two witnesses who proved that the prisoner and Wells were in intimate companionship at Bishop's Stortford about the time that the burglary was committed.
"All this evidence is in favour of the prosecution. Evidence to character has been adduced, but it is for you to decide whether any weight should be attached to it. The witnesses said that the general character of the prisoner was good, but they admitted that injurious reports had been raised against him. They described him as a hawker, but appeared never to have seen him hawk anything, and did not know in what wares he traded. One person who was called as a character witness knew nothing of him, except that he sometimes came to his shop and bought squares of glass and paint. I now leave the whole case in your hands. I leave you to consider whether the corroborative testimony is sufficiently strong to enable you to rely on Wells' evidence. If you have any doubts, you should give the prisoner the benefit of that. But is you have none, you will be performing your duty by finding him Guilty."
After a short period of deliberation, the Jury returned and gave a verdict of Guilty. Lord Campbell then addressed the prisoner directly.
"You have been convicted of the crime of burglary, on clear and satisfactory evidence, which in my mind, admits no doubt. Your accomplice has been a witness against you, and in my experience, I remember no instance in which the evidence of an accomplice has been so strongly corroborated, for it comes to this: that part of the stolen property was found in your possession immediately after the robbery, and you were in the company of Charles Wells, who is already undergoing punishment for this offence, at that time, and on the following day. It is right that the Jury should well sift the evidence, and that they should only return a verdict of Guilty where they are well satisfied of guilt, but I think there would be no safety for mankind if upon such evidence as has been adduced against you, a person were not to be convicted. I am sorry to say that the crime of which you are guilty is becoming more and more frequent. Formerly it was a capital offence, and in a grave case like this, the law was allowed to take its course. I should indeed regret it, if the mitigation of the punishment were to be the means of increasing offences of this description. The law, however, still provides a grave penalty upon you. The sentence is for you to be transported beyond the seas for the term of fourteen years."
Reverend Prodgers begged to be allowed to express his high opinion of the vigilance and intelligence of the police, who had maintained their enquiry for two years, terminating in the detection of the prisoner. Lord Campbell fully concurred that the conduct of the police had been highly meritorious.
"The country is indebted to you for your exertions," he said, "and I should be happy, if it were in my power, to order them the payment of a monetary reward. Although I am not sure whether it is within my power."
In this question, Lord Campbell showed his inexperience in the Assize courts. Mr Rodwell came to his assistance.
"Learned Judge, you might order the payment of a gratuity, as is sometimes done by the Judges of Assize."
The Court then adjourned, it being nine o'clock in the evening, after a sitting of eleven hours.
We cannot say whether Ellen was at the trial, or even whether she remained in touch with her husband afterwards. A month after his conviction, on 30th March 1851, the census was taken in Bedford. Ellen and little Charles Maynard Walker, now aged five, were still living at 2 Priory Street, and they had been joined by Ellen's mother Martha, who was a laundress. Charles was still awaiting transportation in Hertford gaol.
It was over a year later that Charles Walker was transported to Western Australia, for the term of fourteen years, on the convict ship William Jardine. The ship left Britain on 30th April 1852, carrying two hundred and twelve male convicts. His papers state that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall, with brown hair, hazel eyes, an oval face, a fair complexion, and a slender build, and he had a scar on elbow of his left arm. He was married, with one child. [11] The 1788-1868 Convict Records Index compiled by J Reakes from records kept at the New South Wales State Records Office, confirms that Charles was born in Yelden, which is fifteen miles north of Bedford, and his occupation was listed as a baker. The William Jardine was at sea for 88 days, and eventually berthed in Fremantle on 1st August 1852. Although disembarkation began on August 4th, Charles and the other prisoners remained on board until 5th August.
Charles Wells, who had been convicted on 10th Jul 1849, was transported to Western Australia for a term of ten years. He left fifteeen months after Charles Walker, on 31st January 1853, on the convict ship Pyrenees.
Charles was assigned a convict number, 1364, and was detained in a makeshift prison which was on lease from the Harbour Master, while he carried out his sentence of hard manual labour. This included quarrying stone, and building a permanent gaol for transported prisoners. Today the gaol is a heritage centre and is open to the public.
By 25 October 1853, Charles had become a Constable at the Guildford Depot. This was considered a privilege, and was only awarded to prisoners whose behaviour was exemplary. The role of the Constable was to assist the warders and help to maintain discipline. A description dated 15th December 1853 states: "They [Constables] are enjoined to exhibit an example of cheerful obedience, propriety of demeanor, cleanliness, and good order to their fellow prisoners; using respectful language in conveying instructions, and carefully avoiding harshness, or domineering assumption, when in manner or language, in all intercourse with them."
Long before Charles Walker's sentence was due to end, he was granted a ticket of leave, giving him certain rights and freedoms, including finding a job in the outside world. By 1855 he had taken employment with Mr George Marfleet, a well-respected baker and confectioner. Marfleet operated a bakery and general goods store in Perth, and was a longstanding member of the City of Perth Lodge of the Oddfellows. His obituary states that he arrived in the colony in 1851, but there is a likely record of a single man named George Marfleet arriving in Perth on the Mary in 1852, about 24 years of age.
The contrast between Charles Walker, a 'tortured convict poet', and his mentor George Marfleet, a successful settler and 'product of the establishment', is thoroughly explored by John Kinsella, an authority on poetry in Western Australia, but until further evidence emerges, his thoughts must remain in the realms of conjecture. [12]
Charles was still writing poetry, and in September 1855, he offered to undertake any commissions people might require.

Notice - Having frequently been requested to write Verses, Songs, &c., I beg to state that I have no objection to accede to the wishes of such persons, by the composition of sentimental and other Poems, either from subjects of their own suggestion, or from manuscripts now on hand, upon stated terms. This advertisement, however, is not intended to solicit as a favour any commands, but simply to express my wish to oblige such persons upon the subject. C WALKER, Perth, Sept 26, 1855.
Charles advertised almost weekly, between 19th December 1855 and 6th February 1856, promoting a small volume of poetry entitled 'Lyrical Poems':
'Lyrical and other Poems', By Charles Walker. Persons requiring a copy will please forward their wishes to the author, at Mr G Marfleet's, Perth, which will meet with due attention.
From February to March 1856, the wording changed:

Just Published: Lyrical Poems by Charles Walker. Copies can be had at the Stores of Mr G Marfleet, Perth. Price - Half-a-crown.
This tallies with a statement in the Inquirer and Commercial News at the end of July 1856, that 'Lyrical Poems' had been published six months earlier.
Charles published two further items in the Inquirer and Commercial News on April the 30th 1856, the first an advertisement and the second a cautionary poem:
"WHEREAS a manuscript book, containing about one hundred pages, was taken away from me about eighteen months ago, and, from circumstances which have come to my knowledge, believing it to be in the possession of some person well acquainted with its contents, I hereby offer a reward of Two Pounds for the recovery of the same. CHARLES WALKER, Perth, April 24th 1856."
Here is the poem - it is the only one known to have survived:

WHEREAS a man, some five feet ten,
(No matter whether Charles or Ben)
Has took it in his empty head,
The equal empty tale to spread,
That all the dreamings of my muse
Are of the ladies' charms profuse,
But hardly ever condescend
His vocal talent to commend;
He wonders why his foolish tales
So little on your mind prevails:
And why the slander he has sown -
I find it has been all his own -
Has never been received as truth,
By any mind of common growth.
This is to let that tall chap know,
That he may find a 'bar' or so,
To mar the quiet of his path,
Should he presume to tempt my wrath.
Author of 'Lyrical Poems'.
It is not entirely clear whether the men mentioned in the advertisement and the poem are one and the same. Neither is the nature of the stolen manuscript given; I feel it is most likely to be a new collection of poems, but it could be the original manuscript of Lyrical Poems, a notebook, or a diary containing incriminating autobiographical content.
Without context, the poem is also full of ambiguity. Had the slanderer accused Charles of penning effeminate verse (which is possible, as Charles's work predates the advent of so-called 'manly poetry'), or was Charles writing verse about women? Was the slanderer a poet too, and had Charles insulted him by failing to praise his skill, or neglecting to promote his work to the general public? What is he referring to with the word 'bar'? An iron bar, a drinking bar, or a legal bar? The poem is open to so much interpretation that I wonder whether its message is deliberately intended for only the slanderer to understand.
Certainly both the advertisement and the poem show much passion, and perhaps a degree of paranoia, with certain echoes of the letter he published in Bedford when a neighbour allegedly slandered his good name. John Kinsella suggests that he was passionate about being heard, a 'self-promoter', which certainly tallies with the police statement that Charles once hoped to profit from the notoriety aroused by his arrest for burglary.
About a month after the publication of the advertisement and poem, Charles absconded from Mr Marfleet's service and fled the district. He was recaptured and arrested on 16th June 1856, and was convicted on the charges of absconding from work and leaving the district without a pass. He was sentenced to a further twelve months in prison. Being a reconvicted prisoner, his sentence included three months of solitary confinement, in quarters separated from the other prisoners.
It was too much for Charles to bear. On 30th July 1856, he committed suicide by cutting his throat with a razor. Prison records state,
The remains of reconvicted pris[oner] 1364 Charles Walker, who committed suicide this morning at 10.30, will be interred at 9 am tomorrow the 31st Inst.
In its report of the suicide, the Inquirer and Commercial News gives no reason for the suicide, and there is no suggestion that there was a suicide note. [13]
A few days since a reconvicted man committed suicide in the establishment by cutting his throat with a razor. His name was Charles Walker, formerly in the employ of Mr Marfleet of this town, from whose service he absconded a few months ago. It was for this offence and for being out of his district without a pass that he was returned to the Establishment for twelve months. While in the employ of Mr Marfleet his general character was good, but his manner was flighty,and there was no doubt a tendency to insanity. He was a somewhat conspicuous character in consequence of his rage for verse making, which found vent in the advertising columns of this journal, and in a small volume entitled ' Lyrical Poems,' published some six months since.
The source of the journalist's information is not given, but it seems likely that they had interviewed George Marfleet.
Charles was only 30 years old when he took his own life. In hindsight we might conclude that he was a tortured soul who suffered, perhaps clinically, from poor mental health. Perhaps as John Kinsella suggests, Charles was 'crushed' by his critics. My fear is that he was frustrated by the constraints of his employment and intended to rekindle his burglarious ways, perhaps to enhance his own fame, wealth, and status, or to raise money to fund his wife and son's passage to Australia. Perhaps he was devastated by his recapture, and agonised that his freedom had been taken from him just when he was on the verge of success. We can only assume that his dreams, whether of good fortune, of literary achievement, or of returning to Ellen and ten-year-old Charles Maynard Walker, had all been destroyed, and that in solitude, he had lost all hope.
[1] Dr Williams´ Library Registry, Birth Certificates, 1824-1827
[2] Captain George Isaac Hudson was the son of William Hudson, who also lived at Frogmore Lodge. He is listed in an 1844 Gradation list for the Bengal Army in Scott and Co's Bengal Directory. At this time he was on furlough, but he later returned to India.
[3] A cracksman is a slang term for a burglar.
[4] The Hertford Mercury and Reformer, Saturday 12th May 1849
[5] The Hertford Mercury and Reformer, Saturday 2nd June 1849
[6] Hertford Mercury and Reformer - Saturday 14 July 1849
[7] The Hertford Mercury, Saturday September 14th 1850
[8] The Hertford Mercury, Saturday January 25th 1851
[9] The Hertford Mercury, Saturday January 25th 1851
[10] The Hertford Mercury, Saturday March 1st 1851
[11] Western Australia, Australia, Convict Records, 1846-1930
[12] I am indebted to Professor John Kinsella for his research into Charles Walker, which has contributed greatly to the information known about his activities in Australia. He told me, "I have always felt he was a vital poet we have missed out
on." In the introduction to John Kinsella and Tracy Ryan's book, The Fremantle Press Anthology of Western Australian Poetry, published 30 Jan. 2017, it is suggested that Charles was the first person to publish a single author volume of poetry in the colony of Western Australia. Kinsella gives the source of this claim as an essay by John Hays, entitled 'Literature and Society' and published in 'A New History of Western Australia' in 1981. As no copies of the book have survived, the title of 'first author' often falls to Henry Ebenezer Clay instead.
[13] Inquirer and Commercial News, August 6th 1856.