1883-19-23ee

In the October 23, 1883, the Hamilton Spectator reprinted the following letter which had previously appeared in the Toronto World. The letter was written by the mother of the convicted prisoner held in the Hamilton Jail, Maria McCabe:

“Is there no one to plead for the unhappy girl just condemned to be hanged for infanticide in Hamilton ? Of course, the tender maternal heart yearns over the infant; but does it not also mourn and sympathize with the unhappy mother? Can no one put themselves in her place enough to realize the shame, the disgrace, the bitterness that has pursued the poor creature all through the dreadful time before the birth of her infant, and can no one picture a very true conception of the horrors of the future that the illegitimate mother knows is before herself and her offspring, the taunts, the neglect, the cruel coldness that both will have to endure for years, perhaps forever? Cannot every mother recall the painful hysteria that any excitement induces before the child is born, and thus find every excuse for an act that none would condone, but which all could realize the force of the temptation to.

“Beyond all this, it is to be remembered that the mother is congratulated, cheered and encouraged back to health by husband and friends; but the unhappy mother, cast off, or at any rate, uncared for by the father , is – unless she fall into exceptionally good hands – insulted daily, made to feel her shame by every means in her neighbor’s power, and she rises from her bed of weakness to find her exertions, necessary to her livelihood have failed by those maternal cares, which are, in the married state, held to form the highest and strongest claim on the husband and father’s care.

“Pray use your influence in this matter, and believe me that you will earn the praise of many a sorrowing woman who yearns over the trials so often unfairly inflicted upon her sex.”¹

¹ “Maria McCabe : How a Loving Mother Pleads for Her”

Hamilton Spectator.   October 23, 1883.

As requested by several of its readers, the Hamilton Spectator got up a petition for the commutation  of the death sentence imposed on Maria McCabe. The petition, which had already been signed by a large number of people in the Spectator’s business office, read in part:

“That the said prisoner is an unmarried woman of the age of 18 years, and was seduced by the father of the said child, the issue of their unlawful intercourse,

“That the said Maria McCabe is young and inexperienced, and was easily led, and was the victim of her designing betrayer, and, having no friends nor relations in this country, has been exposed to great temptations, and has been deprived of the benefit of home and parental influence, and was, from her destitute circumstances, unable to retain the services of counsel at the trial aforesaid,

“That the said Maria McCabe was apparently driven in desperation to the committing of the crime in question, and stated at the said trial that she was driven to the desperate act in consequence of the refusal of the father of the said child to support the same, and owing to her destitution and friendless condition,

“Your petitioners, while in no sense desiring to countenance the terrible crime of which the unfortunate girl has been found guilty, desire to call your Excellency’s attention to her very exceptionally unfortunate state, and humbly pray that their executive clemency may be extended to her.”

1883-03-24rr

As the hints of warmer weather were getting stronger and stronger in late March, 1883, a reporter for the Spectator felt that the paper’s readers would appreciate an update on conditions at the portion of the city’s waterfront below Point Hill, Bay Street North:

“Now that the chilly winds of winter have flown and the soft breezes of spring try hard to persuade the ‘sick of winter’ people that it is time to throw off great coats and ulsters, jackets and fur-lined dormans and invest in clothing suitable for approaching summer, the sporting man begins to think it is time for him to throw up billiards and pool, swear off playing poker and set himself into condition for the season. He braces himself up and starts out to see what preparations are being made for the pleasure-boating season.”¹

¹ “The Boating Season : Preparations Are Being Made For Business and Pleasure”

Hamilton Spectator.  March  24, 1883.

The first place the reporter visited on his tour was Luke Thompson’s boat house, although approaching it was a challenge:

“Before he can get to it, he is obliged to wade through six inches of the muddiest muddy down the hill leading to the Grand Trunk Railway freight sheds.”¹

Mr. Thompson, when interviewed, expressed confidence about the prospects of the upcoming boating season:

“ ‘All that is wanted now,’ he said,’ is the bay clear of ice, and it won’t take long to clear it now. You see all around the shore, the ice is broken, and it is not very solid any place.’ ”¹

Down by Bastiens wharf, the reporter inspected the new quarters of the Leander Rowing Club which were still under construction:

“It is situated at the extreme end of Bastien’s wharf, with which it is connected by a gangway. It is to be a two-storey building, 55 x 35 feet. On the first floor will be the boat house proper. It will have eight racks for boats.

“In the front of the house will be two sliding doors, leading out to a wharf from which will extend a floating dock. A bath will be on or under the first floor. It is to be fitted out in the best manner with a sliding cage, which can be lowered and raised at the pleasure of the boater. This will afford the bathers the best means of having a good and safe bath.

“On the second floor will be the club room; a wide hall, gymnasium, dressing room, and a room for general purposes. The club room will occupy the front of the building and will be 35 x 20 feet. It is to be fitted up in fine style and will afford an admirable resort for the members . In front of this will be a verandah the entire length of the building.”¹

1883-10-17uu

Exactly at 2:30 p.m., October 17, 1883, after being brought from the Barton Street jail, Maria McCabe was slowly taken into the Wentworth County Court House, and placed in the dock to await sentence.

The previous day, she had been arraigned and had pleaded guilty to the crime of drowning her illegitimate child in the unused cistern of a house on Hughson Street:

“She stood up in the dock when her name was called, and in answer to the judge’s question if she had anything to say why the sentence should not be passed upon her, told her sad, sorrowful story, as it has already appeared in the Spectator. Her voice faltered and she could hardly be heard. Her eyes were red and swollen with weeping, and her cheeks and forehead were marked with heavy lines that told of the mental suffering she had undergone since her incarceration.”¹

Judge Morrison was visibly affected when the time came to pass sentence. Tears sprang to his eyes as he spoke to the young woman. Calling her story a pitiful and unfortunate one, the judge referred to the sorrow he felt at having to pass such a heavy sentence:

“The hush grew deeper. The silence was a painful and intense. The unfortunate girl was taken from the dock and brought near to the judge’s chair for, owing to the wretched acoustic properties of the room and the low tone of voice in which the Judge spoke, she was unable at first to hear what was said.”¹

When the Judge quietly pronounced his verdict, there was not a sound in the court room other than his voice:

“ ‘The sentence of this court,’ he said, ‘on you, Maria McCabe, is that you be taken to the place from whence you came, that on the 18^th of December next, you be taken to the place of execution, and be hanged by the neck until you are dead; and may God have mercy on your soul.’

“The girl burst into tears, and her painful sobs could be heard echoing through the building as she was led from the court room.”¹

¹“Sentenced to Be Hanged : Maria McCabe to Suffer  the Penalty of Death for Murdering Her Child”

Hamilton Spectator.  October  17, 1883.

Maria McCabe was 18 years old at the time of her crime. Born in Dublin, Ireland, she had emigrated to Canada in the fall of 1880. Employed in several places as a domestic, she had left each situation for various reasons.

Having been seduced, she had become a mother:

“Since then she has been chided severely by her acquaintances for her fault. The unwelcome remarks were so numerous and persistent that she yielded to a sudden impulse and threw her child into a cistern.

“After the birth of the child, the poor young girl found difficulty in sustaining herself and her offspring, and must have felt the pangs of sorrow most painfully.”²

² “Maria McCabe’s History A Life Story That Demands Sympathy.”

Hamilton Spectator. October 20, 1883.

(To Be Continued)

1883-10-18ii

On Thursday September 18, 1883, Mr. Charles Watts spoke at the Central Hall on the subject of the Bible and Modern Thought:

“He held that, owing to the hallowed associations which are gathered around the Bible, and to the protection it receives from the State, the book has not been generally open to criticism as any other book setting forth the doctrines of a religion would be. Modern thought, however, took the book and dissected it, finding it much in error.”¹

¹ “Christianity’s Champion”

Hamilton Spectator.   September 18, 1883.

Mr. Watts went on to acknowledge that there was much good in the Bible, but that it was an ancient document, and he claimed the right to reject those parts of the book he felt were wrong. Christians, he felt, were prevented, by their belief in the Bible, from rejecting any portion of it.

After Mr. Watts` lecture, Rev. Dr. Burns of the Wesleyan Ladies` Colllege, spoke in opposition to Mr. Watts` views:

`He remarked that he respected Mr. Watts for the gentlemanly manner in which he dealt with his subject, and agreed with him in some things. The modern Christian was not bound by any such limitations of though as stated by Mr. Watts, but claimed the right to think for himself regarding the Bible and questions of religion, and he, personally, was quite willing to concede that right to Mr. Watts and every other man. That which Mr. Watts had said, which was true, was chiefly of the abuses of Christianity, and was no argument against the system itself. Christianity is known by its fruits, in making men and women nobler and better.<sup>`1</sup>

In reply to Dr. Burns, Mr. Watts said that Free Thinkers, as well as Christians, were devoting their lives to benefitting their fellow man, and that Christians should not take sole credit for such efforts.

After the lecture, a Spectator reporter had a brief interview with Mr. Watts :

``Why do you prefer advocating free thought to that of orthodox religion.`

` `Why? There is a great difference between the interpretation of the word free thought today and as it was regarded 50 years ago. During the latter period, free thought was nothing more or less than a rejection of all phases of religion. Now it adopts the eclectic principle of selecting the good from all faiths, and professing that which is practicable to a system of upright conduct. The free-thinker of today, in giving up all past guides, selects for his present guide a high moral code. It has been proved that free-thinkers are the only men that really think deeply.’

“ ‘How do you like Hamilton?’

“ ‘Exceedingly well. I am agreeably surprised at the intellectual attention given my lectures here, even from those who differed from me in thought.’ ”²

² “Free Thought in America : Charles Watts’ Opinion on What the Next Four Years Will Bring.”

Hamilton Spectator.     September 18, 1883.

 

1883-11-24ww

The cultured music and theatre critic with the Spectator had enough with the rowdy behaviors he and theatre goers had to endure in and around the Grand Opera House on James Street North:

“The conduct of the street arabs who hang around the Opera house, while performances are in progress is simply disgraceful. Monday night they were abroad in all their glory. They swarmed around the main and side entrances, trying as hard as they could to sneak in, and at every opportunity ran up and down the stairs and passages, shouting and stamping for all they were worth. One lad, more venturesome than the others, threw a brick through one of the windows in the Garrick club rooms, and shattered a large pane of glass. And when any of them go in the gallery, they raise such a racket that it half spoils the enjoyment of the play.

“The presence of one or two policemen would stop all this. If a man was stationed in the gallery to keep order there (and his presence would inspire them with such fear that they would be quiet), another at the main entrance, and another at the gallery entrance, it would save all the annoyance and trouble. It is what  should be done, and at once. It seems strange that this blackguardly conduct should be allowed. In no other city, so show people say, is it allowed to go on this way, and it is full time that a stop was put to it here.”¹

¹ “Music and the Drama : Information Concerning Singers and Players”

Hamilton Spectator.  October  24, 1883.