The Oddingley Murders

Researching one thing often results in finding something else of note. This piqued my interest recently and, although I had read about such before, delved a little deeper.

The story begins in the quiet village of Oddingley some 5 miles north of the city of Worcester. The place name means ‘the woodland clearing of the family or followers of a man called Odda’, and as the story unfolds you will see events really do get ‘odder’.

Beginning on 24 June 1806, two fellows travelling near the glebe meadow heard a gunshot. As they went to investigate, they heard the faint cry of “Murder!” and soon discovered a man lying in the meadow, with a gunshot wound to the abdomen. This was George Parker, Rector of St James’ Church in Oddingley, but not for long as he soon died from his wounds. These witnesses also spied a man fleeing the scene. While these strangers could not name him, from their description he could only have been Richard Heming, a local odd-job man. A man-hunt ensued, but Heming would never be found – it was rumoured he had fled the country and living in anonymity in America. Not having any reasons to doubt the murderer had made good his escape, the story made the local headlines for a while but, other than local gossip, was forgotten.

Forgotten until 24 years later when the skeleton of a man was discovered buried beside the wall of a barn at nearby Netherwood Farm. Forensics not available in the first part of the 19th century, the identity of the chap could only be deduced from the clothes and belongings found with him. There was no doubt these were the skeletal remains of Richard Heming.

Investigations showed Netherwood Farm had been leased to a famer named Thomas Clewes at the time Heming vanished. Arrested, Clewes confessed to having witnessed the death of Heming, gave clear details of the killing and named the murderers. He named John Barnett and George Banks as the killers (a third man, Captain Evans, had since died), all three local farmers who had been at odds with the rector on the subject of tithes and had paid Heming the princely sum of £50 to kill George Parker, but subsequently reneged pn the deal and bludgeoned the assassin to death. They had the motive, the body, and the murderers. Locals were confident Barnett, Banks, and Clewes would soon provide the focus for the spectacle of a public hanging.

What had been a local scandal in 1806, became a national headline in 1830. Interest grew when it was announced they could not be tried with the murder of the rector, but only as accessories. The late Captain Evans, said to be the ringleader and mastermind despite being an officer and a magistrate, could not face charges; farrier James Taylor had dealt the fatal blow (according to Clewes) and he faced a murder charge; Clewes was charged, as were Barnett and Banks.

At the trial, the complexities of the case created more confusion. Clewes was the key, everything revolved around his confession. The jury’s verdict against Clewes was ‘guilty as accessory after the fact’ – but when the judge pointed out (and as the press reported quite vociferously) Clewes had not been charged with that but with ‘aiding and abetting’, they retired a second time and returned with a verdict of ‘not guilty’. Such effectively ended the cases against all concerned, and all went back to the quiet life away from the public eye.

The acquittals were, rather surprisingly, met with relief in and around Oddingley. Indeed, some of the villagers broke into the church and rang the bells in celebration – such levity did not go well with landowners or the press, especially when they learned the bell ringers gathered a group who continued the celebrations by drinking and smoking inside the church. Generally the newspapers were in agreement with the verdict as an important principal of law had been upheld.

While I could never suggest George Parker deserved to be murdered, his tithe demands would certainly be seen as excessive. As rector the tithes came to him, one-tenth of the value of their crops to be paid to him to cover his income. That income of £135 per annum - £14,450 today is not a fortune, but considering he did not have to pay for his accommodation, comfortable enough – but Parker, having spent five years trying to get the farmers to pay up, demanded an extortionate sum of £150 in compensation. When the rector took the farmers to court to get payment, he won. Then after five years the farmers, who had resigned themselves to having pay every year, would have given up – but then Parker got greedy.

Perhaps today forensic evidence would have helped secure a conviction or convictions. Doubtless we could almost certainly have shown Heming had not left the country, and surely forensic evidence would have identified killer or killers. And yet today’s legal system would also likely have rejected Parker’s demands for £150.

The Oddingley Murders

On 24th June 1806, George Parker, Rector of Oddingley, was found in the village of Oddingley lying in a field and dying from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. He was discovered after a shot and the cry of "Murder, Murder!" had been heard by two men travelling along a nearby lane. They saw someone running away and, from their description, Richard Heming, a local odd-job man, was wanted. He could not be found and rumours abounded he had left for America. In 1830 a skeleton was found in a barn near to where George Parker had been shot. From his clothes he was identified as Richard Heming. Both men were deemed to have died in 1806, and neither had yet resulted in a conviction.

The barn was owned by one Thomas Clewes. He was promptly arrested and, while in gaol, he confessed to having witnessed the murder of Heming, and even named the killers. Three local farmers, all substantial landowners, were in dispute with Parker about the tithes they were required to pay. They paid £50 to Heming to murder the rector, and then bludgeoned their own man to death. Clewes, John Barnett, and George Banks were arrested and charged, and the case made national headlines. (The third farmer had since died.) Everyone expected a triple hanging - and, in 1830, who did not enjoy a good hanging (well EastEnders had yet to reach the public and yes, I know it seems like it's been around that long).

First the law did not allow for the charge of murdering Parker to be levelled at any of them. They may have been accessories, but the law in 1806 (when the murder took place) did not allow them to be charged. It had been changed by 1830, but the law was not changed to work retroactively. Yet they could have been charged with Parker's murder, if Heming had been charged, which he could not be as he was already dead. But, it was these three who had had a hand in killing the killer, so where is the justice here?

Further complications meant Clewes was only charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Heming. His two surviving accomplices, Barnett and Banks, were then charged as his accomplices. Now it gets even more frustrating, for there was little evidence remaining, any witnesses called to give evidence were uncertain when giving details and many contradicted statements they had made earlier. Well it was 24 years afterwards and the ringleader, Captain Evans, and the third man, James Taylor, were deceased. To add further confusion, Clewes counsel argued that his confession could not be used to implicate others, as he had had no foreknowledge of, nor participated in, the murder of Heming. All three, despite clearly being guilty, were set free and lived out thier lives in relative peace. The locals, who were rather relieved that nobody was held to account for two murders (showing how unpopular the tithes were), broke into the church and rang the bells in celebration (much to the indignation of the press).

For a clergyman to be murdered was rare in Georgian England, but for his death to result from a conspiracy between a magistrate and yeomen farmers was unique. Although a clash of strong personalities contributed at Oddingley, the dysfunctional tithe system was the root of the conflict. Parker's income as rector came from his 'tithe', his right to a one-tenth share in everything the parish produced. At Oddingley as in most parishes farmers had switched to paying money annually rather than giving actual produce, but by 1800 there was often a mismatch between whatever long-agreed sum they gave as tithe, and the real value of a tenth of their crops. Parker's annual income from his tithes was £135, then a respectable amount; but one which had not altered for decades, while years of war had caused rampant inflation. After Parker tried to renegotiate his payment and the farmers refused, for several years he collected his tithes in kind. This procedure caused smouldering resentment and sometimes violence: when it did, Parker simply took the recalcitrant farmer to court. His stubborn refusal to be intimidated exasperated them and his success in gathering a tenth of their produce cost them money. After five years of attrition they were ready to yield the increase he had asked - but at this point Parker demanded a further sum of £150 compensation for costs incurred in collecting his tithes. With the resentful farmers under the sway of Captain Evans, an ex-military man already familiar with the process of delegating violence, a fairly commonplace quarrel over tithes ended in double murder.

Taxes not to Pay

Hearing of the so-called ‘bedroom’ tax, I was reminded of other levies applied by governments over the centuries which were never paid because they never existed – at least not officially. It seems over the years we in the United Kingdom have developed terms for taxes which, whilst they may be more accurate, are not correct.

For example the most recent is the Bedroom Tax. Correctly this is not a tax at all but a penalty imposed on those claiming benefits for houses deemed under-occupied. I’m reminded of Cyril Northcote Parkinson, who gave his name to Parkinson’s Law – “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” Perhaps we will have Cameron’s Law – “Families expand so as to fill the space available in the home.”

Road Tax should be referred to as Vehicle Excise Duty, although it is also known as vehicle tax and car tax. First introduced in 1888, the modern idea was not introduced until 1920 when the monies raised were earmarked specifically for the building and maintenance of roads, hence the former term of Road Fund, although this was changed in 1936 and has since been a general form of taxation.

Poll Tax was, as with bedroom tax, a misnomer coined by the media and opponents of an idea introduced in 1990 to replace the old rates system. Correctly called Community Charge, the popular name came from the new levy which charged each adult in the property for the services provided by the local authority, when the old rates system charged each property, irrespective of the number of occupants. It’s unpopularity saw this replaced inside three years by council tax, which is effectively the same as the old rates system, itself seen as grossly unfair (hence the change to community charge). This was by no means the first Poll Tax in England and Wales, such were imposed by Charles II in the seventeenth century and John of Gaunt in the fourteenth. That the term ‘poll’ is now used in elections is due to it being an early English word for ‘head’ and, after all, an election is simply a head count.

Window Tax may have levied a charge on houses with windows, but the name of ‘Window Tax’ was never officially used. However it is easy to see why “An Act for granting to His Majesty several Rates or Duties upon Houses good for the Deficiency of the clipped Money” would have required a snappier title. All houses were charged two shillings from 1696, those with ten to twenty windows saw this increased to four shillings, while those with over twenty paid eight shillings annually. In order to avoid paying money to the government many houses from this period which are still standing can be seen to have bricked up windows. These were never returned to their original condition when the act was repealed in July 1851.

Income Tax in the United Kingdom was never called such when first seen in 1188 and introduced by Henry II when he was raising money for yet another Crusade to the Holy Land. When everyone was expected to pay a tenth or ‘tithe’ of their income to the nation to help pay for wars and battles which the layman had no interest in. While an effective income tax was introduced around the same time as the window tax, the idea of declaring one’s earnings was not popular as this was seen as personal information. It was not until 1799 that the modern idea of income tax was first seen in Britain in 1799 to help finance the Napoleonic Wars. Repealed in 1816, opponents demanded all references to this loathed taxation were burned – and got their wish when no less a figure than the Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly set light to the documents. He omitted to inform the assembly a copy was retained and hence we are still paying it today – although I’m sure we might not object to a return to the original rates of a minimum of 0.83% and a maximum of 10%.

I would welcome any suggestions for themes or subjects, or even specific words to examine the origins, meanings and etymologies. I’d be delighted to hear from you.