TOPIC:

MURDER OR NO?

Initially the British Newspapers reported Edwin Parslow’s death as an accident.

Then reports of the result of the inquest into his death began to appear – the jury had brought in a verdict of “Wilful Murder against Lieutenant K Murchison” and he was to be tried by court martial.

The inquest lasted only a day, 3 November 1899, besides the verdict further details never seem to have appeared in the British newspapers. The Court Martial of Lieutenant K Murchinson commenced on 9 November and lasted about ten days. Its verdict was to support the findings of the inquest and pronounce a sentence of death.

It is unclear how long this sentence of death hung over Kenneth Murchison but Colonel Baden-Powell recommended mercy on the grounds of eccentricity! Subsequently Lord Roberts commuted the death sentence to one of penal servitude for life.

Many of the British newspapers in reporting the commuting of the sentence added a final line along the lines that it would probably not be until the siege of Mafeking was over before the full truth came out. A few went a bit further vaguely implying a cover up.

It was not until 28 May 1900 that details of the Court Martial were published and then, as far as I can tell, only in the Daily Chronicle and Liverpool Post who Edwin Parslow had worked for.

This quote taken from an Historical Association on line article entitled “THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC DURING THE BOER WAR 1899-1902” by Dr Jacqueline Beaumont Hughes, is relevant and of interest:

All newspapers referred at one time or another to ‘the facts’, meaning the news they published, as if they constituted a fixed body of objective truths. But this was not the case. Facts had to be selected and prioritised. Reports from a paper’s own correspondents were frequently highly opinionated. News of events sent to The Times was written by the Editor of the Cape Argus. The Daily News received its reports from the Editor of the Cape Times, while the Daily Chronicle was supplied with news by the Editor of the South African News. The Argus and the Cape Times were both Imperialist, sympathetic to the aims of the High Commissioner, Alfred Milner, and the Colonial Office and hostile towards the Transvaal. The Editor of the Cape Times prior to the outbreak of war, Edmund Garret, generally thought to be in the pocket of Cecil Rhodes and implicated in the Jameson raid, was close to Milner and supported his policies. The Editor of the South African News, Albert Cartwright, in contrast, was close to the Bond party at the Cape and sympathetic to the point of view of the leaders of the two Boer Republics. Inevitably the reports coming from these three sources often presented quite different information, or gave a different slant to events.

The Court Martial reports in the two newspapers are essentially identical except for the headlines:
Daily Chronicle: “MR PARSLOW’S MURDER – Evidence at the Court Martial”;
Liverpool Daily Post, much more muted and enigmatic: “THE PRISONER’S DEFENCE – REMARKABLE STATEMENTS”.

A transcription follows of the one in the Daily Chronicle of 28 May 1900:

We have now received from our Mafeking Correspondent a verbatim report of the proceedings before the court-martial held at the Court-house in the town on Nov. 9, for the trail of Lieutenant Murchison on a charge of murdering Mr. E. G. Parslow, “Daily Chronicle” War Correspondent.

Lieutenant Murchison, it will be remembered, was found guilty, and sentenced to death, with a recommendation to mercy. Major-General Baden-Powell, having intimated to Lord Roberts that the prisoner was eccentric, the death sentence was commuted to one of penal servitude for life.

The following is a summary of the more important evidence, as given during the ten days upon which the court sat. Our shorthand-writer’s notes of the proceedings of the last two days were unfortunately destroyed by a shell from the Boer’s ninety-four-pounder siege gun.

The president of the Court was Colonel C. B. Vyvyan; the members, Major A. J. Godley, Captain G. C. Wilson, Captain A. P. W. Williams and Captain C. M. Ryan. Lieutenant S. A Minchin acted as prosecutor, Major Lord E. Cecil as judge-advocate, and Mr. J. W. de Kock as counsel for the prisoner. [His name appears several times below but the spelling varies between Kock and Kook.]

Lieutenant Minchin said he intended to show the prisoner on the evening of Nov. 1 was on friendly terms and actually dined with Mr. Parslow at Riesle’s Hotel, whence at about nine o’clock they proceeded to Dixon’s hotel, where conversation of a more or less excited character passed between them. Deceased left prisoner, and was passing the door, when without any warning prisoner took out his revolver and shot deceased as he was passing the glass doors in front of the hotel. The revolver would be found to contain five bullets, and an empty cartridge fitting the bullet taken from the deceased.

The Judge-Advocate proposed to adjourn the case for twenty-one days. Mr. de Kook objected, and after the court had deliberated in private it was decided to proceed with the case.

Entering the Hotel.

Evidence was then given by John Waterston, who was at Dixon’s Hotel in connection with his duties as valet to Captain Wilson. Murchison and Parslow entered the hotel talking loudly. They went into the sitting room on the left. Five minutes later Parslow emerged, Waterston standing on one side to let him pass. Witness heard one say, “you are no gentleman”, while the other replied “I am a gentleman by birth and education”. Then he heard a report. Murchison would be about 5 yards down the passage behind deceased who fell in the doorway. He heard the prisoner cry “Good God, it’s an accident”. Witness went up to the prisoner, and took a revolver from him. It was attached to a lanyard on his neck. Prisoner sat down in a chair in a recess. He seemed stunned.

Mr. de Kock cross-examined witness with a view to show that the light at the time was very bad, and that the revolver which witness took from prisoner was not handed over to the authorities till the following day, and that therefore it might have been tampered with in the meantime.

The Medical Evidence.

Dr. William Andrew Hayes, principal medical officer to the Mafeking garrison, said he made a post-mortem examination of the body. He found a large hole in the back of the skull. The small brain on the left side was very much torn. The posterior part of the large brain on the left side was also torn. The bullet was lying in the base of the skull against the bone, and was the cause of death. He kept the bullet in his possession till next day, and handed it over at the inquiry.

The man who arrested the prisoner. Sergeant Stewart, of the Cape Police, said that acting under the instructions of Captain Wilson he went to Dixon’s Hotel. “as I was putting on the handcuffs”, said witness, “he spoke. He asked me why I was handcuffing him. I informed him of the charge – that of shooting a man. He said ‘Oh, that’s all right old boy’ in a very dazed manner – in an absent minded sort of way. He certainly did not smell of spirits. Might have smelled of wine, perhaps champagne. He went quietly with me to the goal, but appeared very dazed and depressed. On arrival at the goal. Without any reference being made to this matter, he voluntarily said ‘I never fired a revolver’”.

The revolver was here produced. It contained five full cartridges and the empty case. Witness withdrew one of the cartridges to compare it with the empty case. (The case did not fit, and considerable excitement was caused when this fact became apparent.)

Witness pointed out that the case was battered.

Baden-Powell’s Clerk.

William Forsyth, employed as staff clerk to Colonel Baden-Powell, knew the prisoner and Mr. Parslow. He saw them dining together at the deceased’s hotel on the evening of Nov. 1. They seemed on good terms. Later he heard them quarreling in the market square. When they entered Dixon’s Lieutenant Murchison came up to witness and asked for a copy of the day’s orders. Witness walked to the room they were using as an office, and brought him a copy. Mr. Parslow also asked for a copy, but was told that he could see it posted next morning. Both then left the room. As witness was about to proceed home he saw Murchison in the passage, reading a card. Murchison used an opprobious epithet about “that man”, and Mr. Parslow hearing it came into the lobby protesting. Lieutenant Murchison turned and tapping the card with his finger said “I was not referring to you at all; I was referring to that”. PreviouslyMr. Parslow had challenged prisoner to fight, declaring that if he were a man he would “come outside and settle it”. Witness had just got outside when he heard the hot. Mr. Parslow was very near to him when he fell in the doorway.

Witness then described the scene between Waterston and the prisoner. Prisoner said something about an accident.

At the fifth sitting of the Court Lord E. Bentinck took the place of Judge Advocate, as Lord E. Cecil, was too ill to attend.

Leonard Thomas Stevens, a trooper in the Protectorate Regiment, was at dixon’s Hotel on the the first of the month. He was in the billiard-room between the hours of nine and ten (the troopers are using the billiard room as a sleeping place), when he heard voices in the passage just outside the billiard room. After that he heard a revolver shot. He immediately jumped up and went within a few paces of the door. He then heard a voice exclaim, “He threatened me”, and he recognised the voice as that of the accused.
Immediately after he heard the same voice say, “It was an accident, I did not mean to shoot the man”. He advanced to the door, and saw accused standing immediately above the step where the passage drops some 9in., with Waterston, who had him by the arm.

Dr. Hayes was recalled, and on being asked by Mr de Kock if a ricochet from the wall would have caused Mr. Parslow’s wound, said he could not express an opinion.

The Accused’s Statement.

On the Court reassembling on Thursday, Nov. 16, the accused made a statement as follows:-

“About half-past five p.m. on the first of this month, I was at the school-house with my guns, placing them into position (for firing). I suddenly turned round, and saw the deceased standing with a rifle in his hands, holding it at “port”. I knew him by sight. He told me he wanted to have a shot at the enemy, and that he had leave from Colonel Baden-Powell. He asked me where was the best place to go to, and I told him Ellis’s Corner. Just then someone came in sight, and he, Mr. Parslow, asked me if I would go and dine with him that night. I told him I was busy, and he went off in the direction of Ellis’s Corner. I found a place that suited me, and fired those four rounds. As I came back I walked with Major Panzera, and left him at 7 o’clock. It was dark. I did not see the deceased again ubtil quarter to eight the same evening at Riesle’s Hotel. He was outside. I got there first. He came in afterwards. I dined with him and Mr. Hamilton. Mr. and Mrs. Riesle also came in and sat at the same table for perhaps the last hour we were there. The party broke up about half-past nine or quarter past nine, and came out on the verandah. I said good-night, and asked jocularly if anyone was going to me home? I had previously dined at Riesle’s with Mr Hamilton, and he walked part of the way back with me. We walked across the square towards Dr. Hayes’, and then I knew why Mr. Parslow had volunteered to come home with me. He suddenly stopped and accused me of having said something against him, I concluded, during dinner.

“I was so taken with the suddenness with which he challenged me to fight, I practically apologised to him, telling him that I had said nothing against him. He persisted, said I was no gentleman, and as I am much stronger man than he, I concluded he wanted to ruin me by getting me to strike him a blow – had I done so I should have been up for assault – or that he wanted an excuse to shoot me.

“So convinced was I that he was going to to assault me that I went round so as to get on the other side of him, moving round on to deceased’s right so that I could use my right arm, my left having been injured in 1892. I wanted to protect myself, in case he tried to attack me, by hitting him straight out. I saked him to wait till the following morning, and I would discuss the matter with him. I said I had to go to Dixon’s for a copy of the Orders. He laughed at the idea of this. I got away by walking in front, and went to Dixon’s. Forsyth was in the recess. I asked him for a copy the Orders. He gave me one. Deceased followed me there, and also asked Forsyth for a copy of the Orders. He imitated my tone. I took no notice. He went away out of the hotel. I walked into the passage, and stood near the card rack. I was very much upset at the suddenness of the attack and thought Forsyth had noticed it; that my manner had showed it; and to account for this to Forsyth I said: ‘That man is a ..……’, I said it in a very low tone.

“Immediately, almost at once, the deceased Parslow, rushed down the passage from the door. He rushed up to me, quite close to me, and said that he was determined to fight. I tried to pacify him by saying I did not allude to him. I touched a card in the rack – I do not know what card it was, there was only one there – and said, ‘I was alluding to that’. He said something about shooting, and as he said this I said to him – to pass it off jokingly, ‘What do you want me to do? Do you want me to fight you with fists, 7-pounders, or what? For I will not.’ I had previously told him to go away. As I said that I moved round him, as he had, as he had practically shut me against the wall, and went and sat in a chair in the recess. Forsyth was just going away with his papers. Deceased came up to me while I sat on the chair, bent over me, and said ‘You are no gentleman’. I laughed and said, ‘Oh, yes I am, by education’.

Accounting for the Revolver.

“He went away, and I thought he was gone. I took my revolver out of its case, and laid it on the table, keeping the chord round my neck. I did this for two reasons; one, because it was my custom always to sleep with the lanyard round my neck. I have slept so every night since the siege. I was very tired, partly through the interview with Parslow, and also wanting sleep. I take my revolver out always, and put it in my great-coat pocket, or my trousers, because when it is in its case it is in way when I attempt to lie down. I have often crossed the square in the same way with the revolver in my hand, preparatory to turning in. When I slept on the stoep at Wirsings, where my detachment was, I always slept in uniform, either on the verandah or in the yard.

“The other reason was to protect myself in case Parslow should shoot at me on my way back. I got up from the chair, picked up the revolver in my hand, a few seconds after the deceased went round the corner. I went along the passage a short distance, the revolver in my hand. I was weary. I bumped against the wall through weariness and carelessness combined. I did not care whether I bumped against the wall or not. The revolver exploded about that time. I do not know what caused it. I did not see Parslow fall. I had seen him going toward the door. The light was not very good. It was a dim light, very poor. I continued down the passage to go home, when Waterston came towards me, and said something about …….. I could not give his exact words, which made me conclude that somebody was hurt. I think I went down to the recess. I was very much upset. I sat down and tried to think.”

A searching cross-examination of the prisoner here led him into a series of contradictions – some important and some unimportant – and all the while he kept muttering volubly to himself. Prisoner said his defence based on the theory of accident was reserved at the preliminary examination by advice of his counsel. He had always been ready to give it.

Mr. De Kock called Major Panzera to testify to the character of Lieutenant Murchison, who counsel pointed out, was on the reserve list of officers and therefore in possession of a clear record. Major Panzera said that on many occasions he had observed in the accused certain mental peculiarities, which although not marks of insanity were such as one might observe in persons who had suffered from sunstroke or fever.

As announced above. “The Daily Chronicle” notes of the speeches of counsel and the summing up were annihilated by a Boer shell, so that part of the evidence cannot now be given. It was on Monday, Nov. 20, that the court finally retired to consider its verdict. On May 9 “The Daily Chronicle” printed the merciful decision of Lord Roberts, commuting the sentence of death into penal servitude for life.

There can be no doubt that Lieutenant Murchison shot Edwin Parslow. Was it an accident or deliberate? – I rather go for the latter but have to admit to an element of doubt. I am surprised that no evidence was offered as to whether Edwin Parslow was armed and hence I suspect he was not or Mr Kock/Kook was a very negligent defender. Thus, in view of the doubt, a verdict of manslaughter would have been safer.

The newspapers went quiet on the matter until early August 1900 when it was widely reported that Lieutenant Murchison had recently been admitted to Parkhurst Prison. This seemed to wake up the Daily Mail who suggested that a full pardon should be sought for a man who had served Queen & Country, which Edwin Parslow had not. The Daily Chronicle issued a robust response which the Liverpool Daily Post also carried. This response contained additional new information that Major Murchison had been “obliged to leave the army”, when he returned to India in 1893, “because his mind was not in a fit state to continue on active service” – this unfit state of mind was attributed to his previous bout of sun/heat-stroke. So it is not surprising that he appeared to hide his previous military service when he enlisted in the Protectorate Regiment.

The quest for a full pardon seemed to go nowhere and as already reported Kenneth Murchison was declared insane and transferred to Broadmoor in 1902. I suppose a pardon would have meant a transfer to a non-criminal lunatic asylum but I don’t think patients (as they were termed on the 1911 Census return) at Broadmoor were treated any worse than those at other asylums and I suspect Kenneth, as a valued member of their cricket team, received “special” treatment.

There is no doubt that Baden-Powell valued Lieutenant Murchison as a defender of Mafeking as he mentioned him in his dispatches more than once. Kenneth also made Issue 1 of the Mafeking Mail – this from the Daily Telegraph of 8 February 1900 – note the date of publication:



This from the text:

Their [the Boers] whole scheme has been defeated by the gallant resistance made by the garrison of Canon Kopje, who not only refused to budge from their position under a cross-fire of artillery, but succeeded in inflicting such severe losses on the enemy as compelled him to retreat. In this they were ably assisted by the timely and well-directed fire of a 7-pounder under Lieut. Murchison from Ellis’s Corner.

The Australian article found by Dave F also shows his imprisonment following his court martial did not stop him being actively involved in the defence of Mafeking. Surprisingly I can find the same report in only one British newspaper and then the Cambrian Daily Leader!

I mentioned how some of the newspapers implied a cover up – this was one of the most emphatic, the Penrith Observer 6 March 1900:

A great deal of mystery still attaches to the death of Mr. Parslow, a young war journalist, born at Liverpool, who represented a London daily during the siege of Mafeking. In service clubs the incident gave rise to a good deal of gossip when intelligence of it was received in England. The reason for this was that several officers in the beleaguered garrison had written home, and in their letters, it is said, reference was made to the political complexion of the views of the deceased. The paper he represented had taken a strong Boer-line, and at the outset of the war was the subject of outspoken scorn amongst British soldiers. The existing mystery arises from the circumstances under which the young fellow was shot. At first it was reported that his death was the result of an accident. Then letters telling an entirely different story arrived, and now a part of the real narrative has been published in the paper he represented. The true story of his death, it is said, will never be told until the siege of Mafeking is relieved or raised.