Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Waters was born in 1835 and lived in Brixton.
She was known for baby-farming, that is, taking in other women's
children for money; a practice often resulting in infanticide.
Waters drugged and starved the infants in her
care and is believed to have killed at least 19 children. Charged
with five counts of wilful murder as well as neglect and
conspiracy, Waters was convicted of murdering an infant named John
Walter Cowen. Her sister, Sarah Ellis, was convicted in the same
case for obtaining money under false pretences and sentenced to
eighteen months' hard labour.
Margaret Waters (1835 – Hanged 1870)
Margaret Waters, born in 1835, was the first
convicted baby farmer to be hanged in England by William Calcraft
at Surrey Country Goal on October 11th 1870.
Margaret turned to baby farming in 1864 after
the death of her husband to make ends meet.
She started advertising in The Clerkenwell News
for babies to ‘adopt’ for the sum of £10 supposedly passing them
on to foster homes, who also advertised for babies to adopt for a
fee in the local papers. Margaret would then pocket the
difference.
She soon found it more profitable to dispose of
the babies in her care.
It was far easier to drug the babies with
opiates, which suppressed their appetites leaving them to slowly
starve.
Five babies were to die in her care of
diarrhoea, wasting and convulsions.
However, Margaret is suspected of murdering up
to 19 infants.
Margaret would then wrap their frail bodies in
brown paper before dumping them on the streets - a common sight in
Victorian Britain due to the high cost of burial.
Eventually, Margaret was arrested and tried for
the wilful murder of John Walter Cowen, the illegitimate son of
16-year-old Janet Tassie Cowen.
The arresting police officer wrote of his
findings at Margaret’s house: “Some half-dozen little infants lay
together on a sofa, filthy, starving, and stupefied by laudanum.”
Margaret Waters may have been the first to hang
for baby farming, but she certainly wasn’t the last. Rhoda Willis,
or as she was known, tried and convicted as, Leslie James, has
that honour.
The Guardian
Oct. 12, 1870
The prisoner appears to have conducted herself
remarkably well since her conviction. On Monday night she
requested to be allowed to write a statement of her case, which
she desired to be published after her death. She said she pleaded
guilty to obtaining money by false pretences, and admitted that
she had laid down “the dead bodies of five infants,” but she
declared that they all died of convulsions or diarrhoea. She said
she perfectly understood why this case had been “got up,” and she
considered the parents of illegitimate children who wanted to get
rid of them by any moans wore more to blame than persons like
herself. If there were no parents of this class, there would be no
baby farmers.”
She did not betray any emotion while being
pinioned, and appeared to have recovered all the firmness that
characterised her during the trial After the rope had been
adjusted, she, in a calm and composed tone, uttered what was
described by those who hoard it as a beautiful extempore prayer.
Though most of the spectators wore more or less inured to scenes
of horror, several were visibly affected, one kneeling on the bare
ground, and another leaning, overcome with emotion, against the
prison wall. At last she said to the chaplain, “Mr. Jossopp, do
you think I am saved?” A whispered reply from the clergyman
conveyed his answer to that momentous question. All left the
scaffold, except the convict. The bolt was withdrawn, and, almost
without a struggle, Margaret Waters ceased to exist. Nothing could
exceed the calmness and propriety of her demeanour, and this, the
chaplain informed us, had been the case throughout since her
condemnation. She had been visited on one occasion by a Baptist
minister, to whose persuasion she belonged; but ho had, at her own
request, forborne to repeat his visit.
The prisoner said ho was evidently unused to
cases like hers, and his ministrations rather distracted than
comforted her. The chaplain of the gaol has been unremitting in
his attentions, and seemingly with happy effect. Though she
constantly persisted in saying she was not a murderess in intent,
she was yet brought to see her past conduct in its true light; and
on Saturday last received the Holy Communion in her cell with one
of her brothers.
On Thursday Dr. Edmunds, of Fitzroy-square,
communicated to the “Dialectical Society” a voluminous statement
of the woman, who said that her husband left her with £300, and
that she had done her best to earn an honest living by means of
it, but that she had gradually sunk into a state of chronic
impecuniosity and debt. At first she had received women to be
confined, and had then undertaken the care of their children:—
She thus had at one time four children in her
care. She never advertised at this time; but finding herself going
steadily down hill, she began baby-farming as a business. She
advertised for children, and she had answers from persons in all
stations. She drifted along in this course, getting from bad to
worse; but she protested that she had no idea of injuring the
children, though she did some things she was very sorry for, owing
to the difficulties of her position.
At length she entered upon another branch of
the profession: —
She took the Clerkenwell News, and there she
used to find a whole string of advertisements from women who
wanted children to nurse. She advertised herself for children to
adopt, and she generally got £10 with one. When she got the child
and the money she went to one of the other advertisers, and
arranged to put the baby out to nurse. Upon paying two weeks in
advance she was hardly ever asked even for her address, and when
she went away, of course she never heard anything more of the
child. She gained the difference between the £10 given her for
adopting the child and the fortnight’s payment for nursing it.
This was, after all, only a very precarious resource, and she fell
into great distress. She went to a money-lender (whose name she
does not conceal), and borrowed £28 from him on her furniture. He
deducted £14 of the £28 for “expenses,” and made her pay £2 10s. a
month until the whole £28 was paid him. Whenever she was a few
days behindhand in paying one of the instalments, he threatened to
seize all her things, and he only desisted upon being paid 10s. by
way of fine. When the £28 was paid back in this way, she was so
reduced that she was obliged to get another loan from the
money-lender on the same terms. All this took place while she was
at Bournemouth-terrace. At this time the children were as well
attended to as she could manage it; and a medical man was always
called in when they fell sick. When they died they were buried
properly, and she had the undertaker’s receipts.
Afterwards her poverty suggested to her that
she might dispense with this charge when they died, and even that
she might get rid of them living: –
She took them one at a time into the streets,
and when she saw little boys and girls at play, she called one of
them and said, “Oh, I am so tired! Here, hold my baby, and here is
sixpence for you to go into the sweets tuff shop and got something
nice.” While the boy or girl went Into the shop she made off. The
babies, she believes, were generally taken to the workhouse. On
one occasion the boy to whom she gave one was served so quick that
he came out again before she had time to get away. She therefore
stepped into an oyster shop, and ordered some oysters. She saw the
boy looking up and down with. the baby in his arms, and when he
did not see her he began to cry. Some people gathered, and a
policeman came up, to whom the boy showed the baby. The policeman
then walked away with the boy, and she left the oyster-shop. and
got off safe. Some of the persons who gave her the children for
adoption were evidently well off. The babies were very well
dressed. She used to have appointments often to meet parties at
the railway stations, and a gentleman, accompanied by a nurse,
would give her the child. Sometimes the children were given her
within an hour after they were born – in less time, in fact, and
before they were even dressed. One of the children found by the
police at Brixton had been given to her only two days before. She
got £20 with it, and the people that gave it promised her any sum
if she only took good care of it.